Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Referendums Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I went to Brussels on 3 December to visit the European Commission. Hon. Members will pleased to know that I shall not make a speech about the current problems of the Commission. Nor shall I speak about the single currency. However, not knowing that there was a private Member's Bill ballot, and not knowing its result, I was surprised, on reaching my office the following day, to find a large number of messages from people who wanted me to call them. Anyone who comes high in the ballot quickly discovers that he has friends he did not know about—or indeed, has never met.
One is inundated with suggestions for the topic of a Bill. In some ways, that is somewhat insulting—it suggests that one has little imagination and that there are no issues on which one feels strongly. Perhaps most extraordinary were the hundreds of letters I received from supporters of Friends of the Earth. I have been a paid-up member of Friends of the Earth for many years and I know a great deal about the issues on which people wrote to me from all corners of the kingdom. I wonder whether any Member of the House is so feeble that he or she would choose the topic of a private Member's Bill solely on the number of letters received.
Some sensible suggestions were made by serious organisations, and I was tempted by several of them. I was tempted, too, by my own hobby horses and by issues in which I strongly believe. However, one suggestion seemed justified beyond all others. I trust that no one will suggest that my choice has shown a weakness in my character. I have taken up the issue because of the merits of the case, and I was put under no pressure of any description to pursue it.
I cannot pretend to believe that referendums are the best way of governing in a parliamentary democracy. Nevertheless, I accept that the decision on some fundamental constitutional issues is so important that every

voter should have the opportunity to register his or her opinion and to decide the matter. In holding that opinion, I agree—rather unusually—with the Prime Minister, who said on 24 July 1994:
Although there are cases for having referendums on certain issues and indeed we have said we will have one on the electoral system, I am actually not a great exponent of government by referendum.
Curiously, the Prime Minister seems to have changed his mind a little. The people of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London have all had the opportunity to vote in referendums over the past 18 months. Referendums, therefore, have—for good or ill—become part of the government of the United Kingdom, and part of the political process.
Other referendums proposed for the future might have an even more fundamental impact than those already held. Both main parties fought the general election on a pledge to hold a referendum before joining the single currency, and the Liberal Democrats may have pledged that too. The Government have made it plain that they will stand by their pledge.
Proportional representation might be the subject of a referendum, although, as the Labour party is split straight down the middle on the matter, that seems marginally less likely at the moment. If proportional representation were to be introduced following a referendum, it would change the face of government in the UK.
Regional assemblies may be introduced following regional referendums, and that could lead to a fundamental shift of authority from both national and local government. We have even heard some pretty strange ideas about holding referendums by county or district on whether fox hunting should take place in a particular locality.
I have introduced the Bill, therefore, because referendums are here to stay—at least in the short term.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does my hon. Friend think that there has been a curious omission from the Labour Administration's referendum mania? No one is proposing a referendum for English people about whether they would like their own Parliament.

Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend takes her individual position on that matter, but I have never met anyone in England who really wants a Parliament. I do not think that many people in Wales want a National Assembly, but that is another matter.
Referendums are here to stay—at least in the short term. I am a democrat and I believe that the democratic process must be fair, and must be seen to be fair. That idea is neither unique nor original to me; I am delighted to say that the realisation that referendums need fair rules has been growing for a number of years. It is to the benefit of a referendum if people can concentrate on the issues rather than on technical questions about the mechanics of referendums and whether they are equitable and fair. If they are not, people will argue about the result after it has happened.
Fair rules should facilitate a result that is beyond question, and that can be accepted by all as a true and fair account of the wishes of a well-informed electorate. In November 1996, the joint Electoral Reform Society


and constitution unit commission on the conduct of referendums, under Sir Patrick Nairne, concluded:
There are no established rules, accepted by the main political parties, for the efficient and fair conduct of referendums. If referendums are to be held in the future and their results accepted, they should be conducted efficiently and ensure the fair presentation of competing views.
I do not always pray in aid the Electoral Reform Society, but that organisation generally wishes to see a fair and democratic process. For instance, on proportional representation we would disagree, but we would agree about the need for a fair referendum on that matter. Indeed, the aims of the Bill have widespread support across the political spectrum and from many organisations that may disagree on issues but agree on democracy. As well as the Electoral Reform Society, Charter 88, the Institute for Constitutional Research and the Jenkins commission have all identified and supported the need for fair rules.
The referendums campaign, which was largely organised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), attracted a large number of signatories with all sorts of backgrounds. Certainly, many Conservatives signed up, but there were also a large number of Liberal Democrats from both Houses, Labour peers, at least eight Labour Members who stuck their heads above the parapet, Law Lords, bishops and academics, again from all parts of the political spectrum.
I stress that that was not a concerted or a sustained campaign. Together with other Members of both Houses I received one letter, which might just as easily have gone in the waste paper bin with all the junk that we get, including innumerable pleas to sign early-day motions on some obscure subject. Given the low-key nature of the campaign, the support that it has engendered is remarkable. That is because those people who concern themselves with democracy are concerned to establish a fair method of organising referendums.
My Bill has 11 sponsors. Deliberately, there are three Labour Members, three Liberal Democrats and three Conservatives including me. We also have the invaluable support of the only Independent in the House, the hon. Member for Tatton, who is in Kosovo and so could not be here, together with one representative of the smaller parties. All four parts of the United Kingdom are represented. The House will appreciate that all the Conservatives come from England. Also, those four places that have had referendums are represented. Therefore, the sponsors represent a genuine cross-section of the House and, indeed, the country.
The real genesis and spur for the Bill was the Neill committee report, "Standards in Public Life", on the funding of political parties in the United Kingdom, which was published last October. It made some sensible and important recommendations on the future conduct of referendums, but the first recommendation on referendums—the 83rd recommendation of the report—encapsulates all the others:
In any referendum campaign there must be a fair opportunity for each side of the argument to be properly put to the voters.

The report quotes evidence given by Peter Riddell of The Times. I do not always agree with him—he is rather new Labour for me—but he gives reasoned evidence when he speaks of the
implications…for the way in which the political process operates, for fairness in funding and indeed for fairness in operation. Some things have happened which are already worrying…There should be clear rules over the funding of referendum campaigns, the current procedures are chaotic and unfair, especially when the Government is itself a participant.
The report also comments on how political expediency can play a large part in determining how a referendum is organised at present. The report recommends that the Government of the day should remain neutral. One piece of evidence quoted in the report states that the Government, being on one side of the referendum in Scotland, was also able to
write the rules and an information leaflet and send it to every house.
Neill agrees that the Government's being a player and writing the rules is fundamentally wrong.
The Neill committee report also recommends that free mailing should be available to each side in the referendum, as takes place for general elections and as took place in 1975, which seems sensible.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us where his Bill provides for free mailings and deals with the issue that he identified in the previous reference to the Neill report about the involvement of the Government in referendum campaigns.

Mr. Robathan: If the hon. Gentleman will be a little less enthusiastic, he will discover that I am about to come to that. My Bill will only enact the key recommendations of Lord Neill and his committee. Many of the details would be left to a referendums commission. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that in clause 1.
I will now deal with the details of the Bill. It is a simple Bill of a mere six clauses.

Sir Michael Spicer: Before my hon. Friend moves on, will he say why he thinks that the Government have been so longwinded and tardy in responding to the Neill report, which came out in October, as he said? Is not one of the most important aspects of this excellent debate, which he has initiated, the fact that we must get the Minister to tell us when they will respond to the report?

Mr. Robathan: Of course I will let the Government answer for themselves. I am sure that the Minister will do so. If the inquiries that Governments set up to produce reports are genuinely independent, Governments sometimes get replies that they do not like—that applies to all Governments. I fear that the Government did not like the report as much as they had hoped to when they set up the inquiry into political funds. The Minister will have the opportunity to respond and I look forward to hearing his reply.
The first clause sets up the referendums commission, which would enact Neill's central conclusion that there must be an election commission. Since the Bill is


concerned with the more narrow issue of referendums, we have called it the referendum commission. Its role also relates to Neill's recommendation 93.
The commission must be independent. In my view, the most suitable committee already exists—the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The numbers would have to be somewhat smaller, but it or a similar committee are what is envisaged in the Bill. It would be an independent, non-partisan committee headed by a High Court judge. The Bill would give the commission great powers to advise the Secretary of State and produce reports on referendums, which would have to be laid before the House and published.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend wants an independent commission, but a commission is only as independent as the people who appoint the commissioners. Does he have any suggestions as to who should do the appointing?

Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend may be surprised to hear that I have some faith in this Government to observe some impartiality and the democratic process. Just in case anyone does not entirely trust the Government, not only will the Secretary of State make the appointments but the Speaker will have to approve them. We have greater faith in the Speaker, perhaps, than we have—occasionally—in one or two Ministers and possibly others in the Government.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman referred to recommendation 93 of the Neill committee report, which says that the election commission should have as part of its remit reviewing referendums and referendum campaigns. Why does he think that a referendums commission is needed when that committee suggested an elections commission?

Mr. Robathan: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would listen—I have been talking for only 10 minutes. The point is that the Neill committee suggested setting up an elections commission, but the Bill is more narrow and concerns referendums, so in the Bill it is called the referendums commission. However, it would play the same part as that envisaged for the elections commission and if the latter were ever set up, it would take over from the referendums commission. That will be made clear later in my speech.
The Bill mentions that the commission could make recommendations on the wording of any question. In February 1975, NOP ran a poll asking a series of questions about a referendum on the Common Market. I do not always believe in opinion polls—sadly, as May 1997 showed, they tend to be right—but the 1975 poll was illustrative in that it managed to get a majority, on one factually incorrect question, for leaving the Common Market. It also managed to get an 18 per cent. majority in favour of staying in the Common Market on a different question. The result of the referendum was approximately two to one in favour of staying in. That illustrates what we all know: that the wording of the question can dictate the result of the referendum in favour of the person who has set the question.
Significant recommendations could be made by the commission on other issues. The threshold of votes is important. Hon. Members will remember that that notion

was included in the referendum in Scotland in 1979. For example, the Welsh Assembly has been set up on a vote of approval of only one quarter of the Welsh electorate. Another quarter, approximately, opposed setting up the Assembly and half the electorate did not care one way or the other. It is not the business of the Bill to determine what recommendations the commission might make, but that could be one area for examination. Another issue to be considered would be the timing of separate related referendums.
The aim of the commission is to take political expediency out of the calculation of a referendum. The Welsh referendum was held exactly a week after the Scottish one—a case in point. The Government alleged that they were held on different days to avoid confusion. Most people in all parties would agree that the idea was that the Scottish vote, which was, rightly, expected to be heavily in favour, would influence the Welsh vote. The House might note that there does not seem to be any confusion about having separate elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and local authorities on the same day

Mr. Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman does not represent Wales or have the benefit of parliamentary colleagues who could advise him on the situation that prevailed in Wales before the election. If he had, he would realise that there is a media deficit in Wales, which does not have a national printed press such as the Scots enjoy. There was therefore a need for objective information sponsored by the Government on the implications of Welsh devolution. Does he accept that there are distinctions to be drawn between the Welsh and Scottish experiences of devolution?

Mr. Robathan: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, that was an unwise intervention. It is kind of him to make my case. The point about the Neill recommendations is that the Government should not determine what people think. The Government are bound to take a line, but, with all the paraphernalia of the civil service, they should not tell people which way to vote. The hon. Gentleman should read the Neill report with particular reference to its comments on the Welsh referendum.

Mr. John Bercow: I am sorry further to trouble my hon. Friend on the composition of the referendums commission, a point that was ably raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), but does he agree that it is crucial that its composition should be scrupulously politically impartial? It is therefore essential to ensure either that it contains people of different political faiths or people of no known political convictions. Does he agree that it would be supremely inappropriate for someone such as Lord Jenkins to serve on it unless he were counterbalanced by someone of known contrary opinions on the matters in hand?

Mr. Robathan: I accept that, but I think that the Home Secretary, who would appoint the commission, would be impartial. It is difficult to lay down too much in a private Member's Bill, though there may be scope for amendment. The Speaker's Office takes a pretty independent line. Madam Speaker would not allow a commission of such weight to be rigged.
Clause 2 deals with the designation of referendum campaigns and requires a brief explanation. It relates to comments in the Neill report. It is intended that the referendums commission hear from all those who wish to be the designated campaign for a particular outcome. I hope that that would allow—indeed, encourage—groups pursuing the same end to come together in an umbrella group. The Neill committee's comments seem to have been influenced by the fact that both groups in the 1975 Common Market referendum were described as
entirely self-appointed federations of activists".
I hope that broad-based, inclusive campaigns will be designated by the commission. That relates to recommendation 85 of the report.
Clause 3(1) enacts recommendation 84, which states:
each side should be given equal access to an amount of core funding sufficient to enable it to mount at least a minimal campaign and to make its views widely known.
Other recommendations on accounting are covered by clause 3.

Judy Mallaber: I sympathise with the principles of the Bill, but, like others, I find its mechanics difficult to work out. Has the hon. Gentleman considered how designating referendum campaigns would work in extreme situations, such as the referendum on the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland? Groups from opposite extremes supported the agreement while equally extremely opposed groups campaigned against it. Perhaps no proposal could cover that. Similarly, in the Scottish referendum, different political parties supported devolution but were not prepared to work together. I realise that the point is general and does not relate only to the Bill. It is a difficult issue affecting a general principle that I largely support.

Mr. Robathan: The hon. Lady makes a sensible point, unlike one or two others. Clause 2(2) allows the commission to consider the ability of a group to conduct an effective campaign and the views of political parties. In Northern Ireland, it could have considered whether political parties were prepared to coalesce on the issue. It can consider the degree of public support and
such other matters as the Commission considers relevant.
We must not be too prescriptive because that would take us away from the independent judgment of what happens in referendums that I want. It should not be for me to lay down that this or that group, generally or specifically, should be designated as a campaigner. The commission should consider such matters.
To take Europe: many from all parts of the political spectrum wish to go into a single currency. Many, many groups wish to oppose it, from, dare one say it, the Conservative party, right the way across the spectrum to trade unions. It is up to those groups to get together and present themselves as a designated campaign or forgo core funding. That puts the onus on the groups involved, rather than on the Bill. It is left to the referendums commission to decide what to do.

Judy Mallaber: The Bill is a useful opportunity to discuss difficult issues, and, even if it does not pass, we

will return to them in a subsequent one. Would it be feasible to have two different designated campaign bodies on the same side of the argument? Unless it is a simple issue, there will be a great variety of interests that may not be prepared to coalesce but had equal claim to some of the money to argue their particular position.

Mr. Robathan: I wish that I shared the hon. Lady's confidence that, if the Bill does not get through, the same measures will be pursued by the Government. I do not think that such designation would be reasonable. Lord Neill's report says that there should be one designated campaigner. It is a complicated report, so I shall not quote it in its entirety. People should come together. If they are not willing to, they can campaign on whatever they like. I am glad that this remains a free country. In 1979, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), when she was, I think, general secretary of the Scottish Labour party, said that she was not prepared to enter a loose umbrella group.

Mr. Bercow: Soil her hands.

Mr. Robathan: I think that that was the quote. That was up to her. It is up to any group to campaign as it wishes, but if people want public money—the dosh—they must come together in an umbrella group. Some people may not need the dosh.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: Does my hon. Friend recall that part of the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) is that this feature of the Bill was suggested by none other than the Government themselves?

Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that assistance.

Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Robathan: I will, and then I must make some progress.

Mr. Cash: The question arises whether we would exclude money coming from certain quarters, not least the European Commission and the panoply of bodies in the European Union, because they have a vested interest in a yes vote. Another question is whether limits should be imposed on the amount of expenditure on either side of the argument. I am sure that those matters could be dealt with in Committee.

Mr. Robathan: Those are extremely important points. The question of limits is raised in the Neill committee report. I have judged it best to leave the matter to the independent referendums commission. As for money from the European Commission, it seems to me that that would count as taxpayers' money—it certainly does not come from trees—and should be joined with the other stuff, but that would be up to the referendums commission.

Mr. Peter Brooke: To return to what my hon. Friend said a moment ago about the Government's attitude to the issue that he raises, does he recall the Government's reaction to


the Neill committee? They said that they agreed with the main thrust of its recommendations. Can my hon. Friend conceive of any circumstances in which the issue could not be said to fall within the main thrust of the recommendations?

Mr. Robathan: Of course, no. It is entirely within the main thrust of the recommendations. The clause is designed solely to implement one of the Neill committee's recommendations.

Mr. Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robathan: I will, but I should make progress to give others who sit here waiting a chance to contribute.

Mr. Dismore: I wish to pursue a different aspect of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber). Clause 2 says that the commission shall certify a body in relation to each of the possible outcomes of a referendum campaign. In the London referendum, mercifully, we had only two possible outcomes—for or against. If the Government had given the Opposition their way, we would have had an additional question on whether we should have a mayor or an assembly, and, if they had given the Liberal Democrats their way, there would have been a question on whether the assembly should have tax-raising powers. If all those questions had been incorporated, there would have been seven possible outcomes. Would the Bill allow for an individual or body to represent each of the seven different outcomes? As I read the Bill, it would.

Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is right to read the Bill in that way, but the point is that the referendums commission would determine what was fair in discussions with the Government as the Bill went through Parliament. The amount of money would not be enormous. I put a question to the hon. Gentleman for him to mull over quietly—I do not intend to give way to him again in the near future. Is the purpose of a referendum to discover what the electorate think on a particular issue? The answer may not be yes or no. It may be yes, no, yes, yes, perhaps this way or perhaps that way. If there is to be a referendum, it has to be fair. It is no good simply saying, "Back me, we are the Government. Trust Tony"—or whoever it might be.
Clause 3(2) gives equal access to the broadcast media to both sides in a campaign. It relates to the general thrust of Neill about the
fair opportunity for each side of the argument to be properly put to the voters",
in recommendation 83. It also reflects the comments that Neill makes on broadcasting:
The broadcasters fully recognise their obligation to be fair to the various parties participating in referendum campaigns and to be neutral between them".
He concludes:
The broadcasters should consider allocating free airtime to the two umbrella organisations on each side of a referendum, if two such umbrella organisations exist. There seems no reason on the face of it why the broadcasters should not follow the lead of the election commission in this matter".

Clause 4 deals with reports and relates to recommendation 93 of the Neill report. It puts the referendums commission in its context relating to the progress of legislation on a referendum through the Houses of Parliament.

Judy Mallaber: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robathan: I think not, for the moment.
Clause 5 provides for money for expenses relating to the referendums commission and to the Bill, and clause 6 cites the measure as the Referendums Act 1999.
This is a short and simple Bill. One might have thought that it was so simple that I could sit down now. Do I hear cries of "hear, hear"? No. One would have expected that the Government, who instituted the Neill committee in November 1997, would welcome any legislation that enacted the committee's recommendations as speedily as possible. It will certainly be a year between publication of the report and the time when the Bill comes back for Report and Third Reading.
At my first meeting at the Home Office, I was pleasantly surprised by the sympathetic hearing that I received. However, sadly—the Minister is a decent chap—and unbelievably the Government now seem unwilling to accept the recommendations of the report that they instituted. I fear that the Government intend to block this cross-party measure, which all democrats support.
Contrary to appearances, I am not entirely naive. My initial reaction was that I would meet some Government opposition. I have had a bet with a colleague that the Government would not give the Bill a fair wind—a bet that I have already won. The previous Government also had a great suspicion of private Member's measures, but I have gone to great lengths to allay the suspicions of this Government. There is no hidden agenda. This is just a very simple Bill to enact recommendations of which the Government appear to approve. There are some decent Government Members who, I hope, are as disappointed as I am that the Government may seem to obstruct the measure.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), has, I fear, been told to write to me to state that
it would not be sensible
to legislate at the moment. Weasel words. If this is genuinely a question of timing, I offer to withdraw the Bill now. I will withdraw it if the Home Secretary will come to the House and guarantee that the provisions of the Bill and all the recommendations of the Neill Committee on referendums will be placed on the statute book before any other referendum takes place in the United Kingdom. I think it unlikely that I shall be withdrawing the Bill.
The Government's position is as follows:
The Home Secretary has made it clear that we will publish a draft Bill before the Summer Recess".
Shall I list those White Papers, stated intentions and draft Bills that have been published and never seen the light of day? I have a list of draft Bills here. They have all been waiting more than a year and they include the Environment Agencies Bill, published in 1984, the Commonhold Bill, published in 1996, the Lotteries


(Frequent Draw) Bill, published with a consultation letter in January 1998, and the Offences Against the Person Bill, published in February 1998. I wonder how much longer we will have to wait for all those Bills.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robathan: No.
Draft Bills and White Papers have a habit of being kicked into the proverbial long grass. If a Bill containing the clauses in my Bill is promised for the next legislative Session, with the conditions that I have made already, I will withdraw my Bill, but the Minister tells me that such promise can be given, because
the Government's legislative programme for a Session is not announced in advance of the Queen's Speech.
As a general rule, that may have some validity, but we all know that it is not true. It is quite one of the lamest excuses that I have ever seen given by a Minister or by his civil servants.
In his courteous and friendly letter, the Minister states:
We intend to legislate on the main findings of the Neill report as a package.
The letter points out that the report contains 100 detailed recommendations, but it does not say that all the recommendations, particularly those relating to referendums, will be enacted. The Government will argue that there is some logic in proceeding steadily and sensibly with the Neill package.
I would accept that logic if the guarantee for which I have asked were given. But how can one accept the logic that may obstruct the Bill, when the Bill does not entail any great costs or cause any great problems for the legislative process, or for the civil service? It is a simple question of passing the recommendations into legislation. If it is never used because it is superseded by a Government Bill which incorporates its provisions, I shall be very content. My Bill could be passed, and members of the Neill committee could be provisionally appointed as the referendums commission but put on hold pending the Government's Bill, which could contain a clause saying that my Bill was repealed because all the provisions were now incorporated in the new package Government Bill. I would be very happy with that.
My Bill might have deficiencies—I have never claimed to be a brilliant parliamentary draftsman, although I have received great assistance from the Public Bill Office, to whose staff I pay tribute. I should be happy to change its name to "The Referenda Bill" if its current title offends Latin scholars. I do not suffer from such a high degree of amour propre that I should mind in the least if the Government were to take over the Bill. However, what I, all hon. Members on both sides of the House and all democrats both inside and outside the House care about is that any future referendum in this country should be conducted according to fair rules. Past referendums have not allowed sufficient voter awareness. If referendums are to be part of our political process, voters must know both or all sides of the argument and be aware of how their vote will influence their life. If the Government obstruct the Bill, as I believe that they intend to do, I shall be

hugely disappointed, not because of some misplaced pride or personal vanity, but because the Government will be obstructing the process of democracy.
The Government's true position was given by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) on 18 October, on "Breakfast with Frost"; I commend a tape or a transcript of that programme to hon. Members. When asked whether the Government were obliged to accept the Neill recommendations, the right hon. Gentleman replied:
We don't have to but we need to be mindful of the analysis that he is offering.
The right hon. Gentleman is not present, and I apologise for not having mentioned to him that I would be quoting his words, but I am not criticising him. Even if his position is now more humble than it was then, he remains a force to be reckoned with in Government thinking.
During the debate on the Neill report on 9 November, the Home Secretary was equally equivocal, especially about the position of the Government in a referendum. Let the Minister now present put all that equivocation behind him and say where the Government stand on all the recommendations of the Neill committee. Yesterday, I gave the Leader of the House, with the Home Secretary sitting next to her, an opportunity to state the Government's case, but the right hon. Lady failed to do so.
Perhaps in all this can be seen the hand of Alastair Campbell: a man who defended the actions of Robert Maxwell through the pages of The Mirror and who was described by a High Court judge—perhaps the same judge as I would have to lead the referendums commission—as:
A witness in whom one can have no confidence".
Sadly, however, he is a man whose influence on decisions made by the Labour Government is all-pervasive.
The Government spend a lot of time calling themselves "the people's Government", and almost every policy is the people's this or the people's that. It is not a cheap jibe to point out that everyone in the House knows the contempt that the Government have shown, and continue to show, for Parliament. However, if they obstruct this valuable and small constitutional measure—a measure that will assist the people when voting in referendums—this arrogant Government will have shown that they have a contempt for the people that I thought even they would never dare to show. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on the Bill, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on having introduced it. I shall not support the Bill, but it gives us an opportunity to discuss the important issues surrounding referendums.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I am not greatly enthusiastic about holding referendums, although I believe that, on certain important and crucial issues, it is right to give the people of this country their say through a referendum. The Government of the day were right to hold the 1975 referendum, because it gave the people an opportunity to make a decision on what was then the Common Market and is now the European Union. Similarly, it was right of the new Labour Government to follow the example set by the Labour Government in 1978–79 and hold referendums on whether to establish a Parliament in Scotland and an Assembly in Wales. Those referendums gave the people


of Scotland and Wales the right to grant legitimacy to that form of devolution by showing that they wanted it. The results of those two referendums fully endorsed the commitment given during the 1997 general election and gave legitimacy to the bodies that are to be established after the May elections in Scotland and Wales.
The hon. Member for Blaby referred to the London referendum. Again, it was right to hold a referendum on the subject of whether to have a mayor and assembly for London. This time, having reorganised London government, we do not want it to be undone as soon as there is a change of Government; the people have shown that that is what they want and that they do not want it to be changed subsequently. I well recall the Herbert commission in the 1960s recommending that changes be made to the system of local government. The year after the 1963 election, the new Greater London council took full effect, followed 10 years later by changes to the metropolitan counties. Those changes—reorganisation in London and in the rest of the country—were introduced by Conservative Governments, but were then undone by the Thatcher Government because the bodies concerned would not do exactly what she wanted them to do. This time, the people of London have expressed a clear view on what they want.
There are two crucial future referendums. First, there is to be the referendum on whether to join the single currency. As a strong supporter of the euro, I believe the sooner that referendum is held, the better. Manufacturing industries in my constituency believe that it is crucial that Britain should be involved in the euro, and in the decision-making processes at an early stage, rather than trying to join it at a late stage. If we had been in Europe right at the start, we would have been in on the formulation of the common agricultural policy; as it is, we joined late and then tried to make changes.
The second referendum to which we are committed is on the Jenkins proposals. I realise that I am standing behind some of my hon. Friends who hold a different view from mine on the question of proportional representation versus first past the post, but I am firmly committed to campaigning in favour of first past the post. However, it is right that the people of this country should be given a chance to determine whether any change should be made, because those are extremely important issues.
New Zealand held a referendum on the same issues and, on the basis of an extremely low poll, eliminated first past the post from its system, with the result that, in the second-stage referendum, first past the post could not be considered. Even though the poll was far higher and people had changed their minds by the time the second referendum was held, they were not able to choose to stay as they had been, but had to vote for some alternative. It is therefore absolutely crucial that we get the question absolutely right when we hold our referendum on the same subject. The form of the question is an issue covered by the Bill. We have to ensure that the question is put correctly, so as to give people the proper choice.
In connection with the issues of publicity and how opposing campaigns are run, we need to consider the only nationwide referendum held in this country: the 1975 referendum on the Common Market.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Would the hon. Gentleman concede that the 1975 referendum was held

simply to cover up the splits in the Labour party? The then Labour Government could not take a firm decision themselves, so they subcontracted the decision to the people of this country. They held a referendum to cover up the splits that the issue had caused in their own party.

Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman might be partially correct, but it does not really matter; if he had been listening to what I was saying, he might not have intervened.
I accept that, at that time, the Labour Government were divided, but they made a clear decision, right at the start, that all members of the party, both inside and outside Parliament, should be able to campaign whichever way they wanted during the referendum. We gave the people the opportunity at an early stage—we had been members of the Common Market for only a short time—to decide whether our future lay within the Common Market. The decision taken at that time underpins the way in which we have proceeded in the many years since then, through the single market, the Maastricht treaty, and so on.
It is true to say that about two thirds—a majority—of Labour Members at that time supported the view of the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson that our future lay in Europe. Outside the parliamentary Labour party, about two thirds of Labour supporters rejected that view and only one third were in favour. I make no apologies for the fact that I campaigned vigorously for a yes vote. That did not help my immediate progress within my party, although it did not prevent my selection as the Labour candidate in 1981 to contest the seat of Burnley in the 1983 general election.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: I share my hon. Friend's scepticism about the role of referendums and his fear that they will undermine the strength of Parliament. Although the Government were divided in 1975, that is no reason to argue against referendums—indeed, we could argue that a referendum should be held when a major constitutional issue must be determined and none of the political parties can reach a consensus about it.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It may be that this country will further strengthen its links with Europe over the next 20-odd years.
I referred to the events in 1975 because a clause in this Bill mentions the media. We must look back to 1975 and ensure that we do not make the same mistakes. Although I campaigned for a yes vote in 1975, I believe there was overwhelming pressure on the public to vote yes—despite the steps that were taken to try to ensure that both cases were represented fairly. The broadcasting media was not the only culprit: the overwhelming majority of the press campaigned for a yes vote. This Bill refers to controls on, and access to, the broadcast media, but it does not mention any other ares of the media. It is the same with general elections: we often talk about balance and access with regard to the broadcasting media, but we do not always insist that the same rules apply across the board.

Mr. Philip Hammond: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the 1975 referendum. Does he accept that there is a distinction between a genuine referendum, when the Government remain neutral and there are real


divisions across the board, and a bogus referendum, when the Government adopt a clear position but are unwilling to take the risk of testing it by going to the country in a general election?

Mr. Pike: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the Government will state clearly that they want the people of this country to vote yes overwhelmingly in a referendum on the euro. That was our position at the last election. We also said in our election manifesto that we would hold a referendum on the voting system. So we have a mandate to hold those referendums. Furthermore, we declared our intention to hold referendums on self-government for Scotland, Wales and London. I do not believe that a choice must be made between holding a referendum or going to a general election.

Judy Mallaber: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's remarks. When canvassing during the election campaign specifically on the issue of the euro and whether a referendum could be useful in resolving that question, I met strong Labour supporters who were unhappy about the euro and, similarly, Conservative supporters—although not very many—who were in favour of the euro and unhappy about their party's policy in that regard.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, when views differ within the political parties—although the Government might wish to advance a particular view strongly—it may be helpful to hold a referendum so that the electors do not have to sign up to an entire policy platform? That is particularly important when it comes to major constitutional issues, as I may wish to disagree with my party in a referendum.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct; that is a key point. I have strong views about the voting system and the euro. At the end of the day, I hope that the Government will reach the same conclusions on first past the post—although they may not. It is clear that we should hold referendums to decide such questions. Through his Bill, the hon. Member for Blaby seeks to ensure—as did the Neill report—that people have a genuine opportunity to consider fairly both sides of the argument. I accept the legitimacy of that point.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: My hon. Friend points out correctly that the Neill committee called for fair rules in referendums. Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with this Bill is that it lacks a series of controls recommended by the Neill committee, such as the requirement to register any campaigning group or individual intending to incur expenditure of more than £25,000? It also lacks any provision to ban donations from foreign sources.

Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend—that is my next point. On the question of publicity, I believe we must regulate the whole of the media, not simply the broadcasting area, if we genuinely wish to ensure that a referendum campaign represents both sides fairly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) is correct to say that the Neill committee cites certain figures and contains recommendations

regarding donations by organisations and so on. The Bill's failure to address those points is a serious omission. The Bill also fails to address the question of free mailing and the free use of public rooms. That is not an issue in parliamentary and other elections in this country, and I believe that the same rules should apply to referendums.
I agree with the principle of the Bill. Its introduction provides an opportunity to discuss the issues, but I do not think it goes far enough. I hope that the Bill will not make progress today and, if it does, I hope that it will be much amended in Committee. I look forward to the Government's introducing legislation that addresses all the Neill committee's recommendations, rather than one specific point. The hon. Member for Blaby recited a rather nonsense list of draft Bills, the majority of which were introduced by the previous Government but fell when the general election was called. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's arguments. The Government are fully committed to acting on the Neill committee's recommendations sensibly and positively. They will legislate on the conduct of all elections and referendums.
I had meant to be brief, but interventions have extended my speech. I realise that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. I reiterate that I reject the Bill and I am sure that the Government will deal positively with these issues. We will ensure that future referendums are controlled openly and sensibly so that people can exercise their vote on the basis of full and accurate information.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I strongly welcome the initiative and success of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) in introducing the Bill. It is an important opportunity for the House to express its concern to ensure that referendums, which are becoming a regular feature of our constitutional development, are conducted fairly and command complete support—not only while they are being conducted, but afterwards.
In the past 18 months, we have had more referendums than we had in the previous 18 years—perhaps because there was a period of constitutional stasis prior to the last general election—and that has underlined the importance of making rapid progress on the matter. At least two referendums were promised by the Government in their manifesto before the election. The first relates to the possibility of an alternative electoral system for Westminster and the other to the adoption of the euro.
Those are major issues for the country and the setting up of referendums on those questions should be subject to regulation that has been determined prior to the enactment of the necessary Bills to enable the referendums to be held. We need what the constitution unit has called generic referendum legislation. I am encouraged by the fact that the Government are committed to publishing—this summer, I believe—a Bill setting out their conclusions on the Neill committee's recommendations, particularly on an electoral commission.
It is desirable that the work of regulating elections and referendums should be in the charge of a body that is seen to be independent of the Government. The current arrangements are far from satisfactory. The hon. Member for Blaby was right to draw attention to our particular experiences. It was not satisfactory that the Government


decided to put a two-question referendum to the Scots without any prior cross-party discussion. That was bounced on the Scots. The outcome was not unfortunate, and I dare say that the Government's political judgment could not be faulted in that case. However, the referendum should have been processed by agreement.
Similarly, the single referendum question put to the people of London about the proposed reform to establish a mayor and an Assembly did not allow for the expression of diverse opinions that might have been more redolent of exactly what the people favoured. Once again, there was a question about the question.
Those two experiences point to the appropriateness of what the hon. Member for Blaby advocates in his Bill: the commission should be able to proffer advice on the referendum question to the Government and Parliament when the arrangements for particular referendums are being contemplated.
The genesis of the hon. Gentleman's proposals goes back a long way. There has long been an awareness of the need for fairness in referendums. I draw attention to a Labour party policy paper, published in 1996, "A New Voice for England's Regions", which says that the Labour party would establish a body that would be
directly and solely responsible for all aspects of electoral administration and for ensuring freedom and fairness in all aspects of our electoral system.
There have been calls from the House for an electoral commission to regulate referendums and elections, notably in the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs of September 1998, HC 768.
The hon. Member for Blaby properly referred to the important recommendations of the commission on the conduct of referendums, established in 1996 by the Electoral Reform Society and the constitution unit at University college, and chaired by Sir Patrick Nairne. That commission concluded:
The conduct of referendums should be entrusted to a statutory independent body, accountable to Parliament, in order to ensure maximum confidence in the legitimacy of the results.
Extensive reference has been made in the speeches of the hon. Members for Blaby and for Burnley (Mr. Pike) to the recommendations of the Neill report published in October 1998. I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members broadly agree with those recommendations and want them to be enacted as soon as possible.
The House will have to come to grips with certain of the Neill report's recommendations, for example, on the making of the Government's case. I said when the report was published, and still believe, that the mere decision to hold a referendum should not make it more difficult for the Government freely to express their side of the argument. That is almost certainly not the intention of the Neill committee, but some of the language in the report gave support to the view that the Government should drop out during a referendum and leave the advocacy of their case to an umbrella body. That would be artificial and unsatisfactory.

Mr. Martin Linton: I was interested to find out whether the right hon. Gentleman would repeat the comments that he made during last year's debate on referendums. He remarked on the Government's role in fighting in a referendum and he now repeats that it would

be artificial for them to have to contract the expression of their case to an outside body over which they would have no control. Does he agree that the Bill would force a Government into that position and that they would not be able to spend money to support their own case?

Mr. Maclennan: The Bill contains a risk of that happening, but it could possibly be amended in Committee to take account of the problem. The clear objective of the Neill committee, the Bill, myself and, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman is that there should be fairness as well as clarity on both sides. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. A number of private conversations are breaking out. Hon. Members ought to listen to the right hon. Gentleman, who is addressing the House.

Mr. Maclennan: As referendums are, of their nature, held on questions of Government policy, it is clearly right that the advocacy of the Government's case should not be subcontracted to any other body and the Government should be the spokesmen on the issue.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman said that, in a couple of instances, the Neill report had arrived at the wrong conclusion. I would suggest that it also arrived at the wrong conclusion about the spending limits for referendums. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the criticisms of, and concerns about, the 1975 referendum was the wide disparity in the funding of the two campaigns, and that spending limits should be imposed in referendums?

Mr. Maclennan: It is unquestionably true that there was great disparity in the 1975 campaign and that it may have had an untoward effect on perceptions about its fairness. Again, we have to avoid artificiality. A Minister appearing on a broadcast, saying what the Government's view is, might cost almost nothing but have an immense impact. Somehow we have to maintain a balance.
I am not entirely happy about the Bill's mechanistic proposals on broadcasting. Broadcasters might give less attention than they should to both sides of the case if we constrain them too much by the proposed rules of balance. However, the reason behind the proposals is extremely important—there should be fairness, and broadcasters should seek to ensure that there is. This is precisely the type of matter on which the House would value not so much the regulations in the Bill, as the advice of a truly independent referendums election commission, which would no doubt carry great weight with broadcasters.
The Bill has great merit, especially in that it focuses on the urgency of the situation. It was quite right to introduce the Bill. I have no complaints about that, even in the knowledge that the Government intend to introduce an election commission Bill at some stage. It is right for the House to know that referendums are coming down the pipe. We want to make sure well in advance that we are not bounced into passing a referendum Bill to establish a poll on the euro, without having a well-established framework that is accepted by all parties and understood throughout the country. It would lend great weight to the outcome of such a referendum if such a framework were established soon.
I hope that, as a result of this debate, we might hear a little more from the Government about their intention to introduce a Bill and whether they would like it to be enacted in the next Session of Parliament. I heard the Minister saying that Governments do not divulge what will be in the Queen's Speech. That rule is becoming more honoured in the breach than in the observance, although I do not expect the Minister to give a definitive response today.
There is widespread support for the introduction of a draft Bill this Session. Indeed, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have suggested that it would be possible to introduce a draft Bill in this Session of Parliament and carry it through into the next, a procedure that the Government have already adopted in respect of an electronic commerce Bill and a financial services Bill. There is much merit in getting matters into the open as soon as possible to get comment and support from all sides so that we can ensure that we reach our common ends in good time.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on introducing the Bill. As has just been said, there is recognition of the need for reform. The question that we have to ask today is whether the Bill deals with that need in the way that it should. As the hon. Gentleman may have gathered from my interventions, my main concern is that many of the issues that need to be addressed have been left out of the Bill. They include, for example, the registration of campaigners, funding rules—including those in relation to donations—and the role of the Government in referendums, something that the hon. Gentleman touched on in response to me. I shall return to those issues later.

Mr. Letwin: I do not want to detain the hon. Gentleman for long, but would it be of interest to him to know that the suggestion to remove the registration of campaigners derives from his Government?

Mr. Dismore: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be patient and wait for me to get to that point.
Any reform should be comprehensive. In response to a motion for the Adjournment of the House on 9 November 1998, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear that the Government were going to consider the issue in the round. He said:
The next step is to turn the report"—
the report into the funding of political parties—
into legislation. We are setting about that straight away. It will not be possible to introduce and carry through a measure of such scope with due attention to getting the framework and the detail right in the next Session of Parliament, but we intend to introduce a draft Bill before the next summer recess and to bring forward legislation so that new rules can be in place before the next general election."—[Official Report, 9 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 53.]
There has been a great deal of argument about the Government's intention, but the Home Secretary's remarks were given particular force and emphasised by the Lord Chancellor when he spoke at the annual

constitution unit lecture on 8 December 1998. The Lord Chancellor stressed the importance that the Government attach to the issue and said:
As the Home Secretary has made clear, we shall be giving careful consideration to all the Neill Committee's recommendations on the conduct of referendums and we will examine how best to take them forward in the context of the draft Bill which we will be publishing by next year's summer recess.
I understand the impatience of the hon. Member for Blaby that progress be made in respect of the Neill committee's recommendations, but he is jumping the gun because the Government have said that their Bill will be published by the summer and that we shall be able to consult more widely on much of the detail.

Judy Mallaber: Does my hon. Friend agree that referendums and the broader matters raised by the Neill committee's recommendations are complex? I have not looked at them in great detail, but I am finding it hard to work out exactly how the proposals should be implemented. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's Bill would benefit from pre-legislative scrutiny by a Committee of the House? Might not that assist us in making sure that the Bill is not only properly formulated but has support from all parts of the House? We have to get it right, otherwise we shall lose the legitimacy of the democratic and political process.

Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. When I was researching my speech for tonight—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tonight?"] I spent a happy hour or two in the Library the other night. The more I read up on this matter—I read the Neill report, the Jenkins commission's report, the Library brief, Hansard and all the other documentation available—the more that I became increasingly concerned that the detailed issues, some of which have already begun to be elucidated, were much more complex than might appear at first blush. I therefore welcome my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's announcement about the draft Bill. The suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) that there should be pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill would be an excellent way to proceed. In longer discussions we could flush out the important issues that are already starting to emerge at this early stage.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: My hon. Friend has obviously conducted wide research for his speech. Was he able to look at the Home Affairs Committee report on electoral law and administration? If he has seen it, would he comment on the evidence presented by Dr Butler and Professor Blackburn, who expressed concern at the large number of bodies with a role in the electoral process? One of their arguments in favour of an electoral commission with responsibility for the rules governing referendums, was that that would allow a much more coherent view of those matters to be taken.

Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I admit that that is one of the reports that I have not read; perhaps my hon. Friend will lend me his copy afterwards so that I may read up on what the Home Affairs Committee said. There is much in what my hon. Friend says; in fact, that would have been my next point.
One of my main anxieties about the Bill is the fact that the hon. Member for Blaby regards the Bill as a referendum Bill, and therefore he proposes a referendum


commission, which might, in due course, be subsumed into an elections commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) makes an extremely important point when he says that we risk a plethora of different bodies advancing a variety of ideas and suggestions, some of which may be mutually contradictory.
Later, if there is time, I hope to point out some of the contradictions that exist between, for example, the Jenkins report and the Neill report on one or two of those important issues. In that context, I believe that it is extremely important that one body oversees all these issues—a Neill committee recommendation that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have taken into account when drafting the Bill.

Mr. Cash: Surely the Government would understand that there is a distinction between a referendum and an election. I strongly support the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), irrespective of the Neill committee report, for precisely that reason. There are rules relating to broadcasting and to expenditure which are, and should be, specifically geared to the question of the issues that arise in a referendum, which is quite different from an election. The electorate vote in both elections and referendums, but in one case one is asking for support for a Government, and in the other for support for a yes or a no to a question.

Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting intervention, but I am not sure that the distinction that he draws is as clear cut as he suggests. In the end, many of the issues that a referendum commission would address—precisely the points that the hon. Gentleman raises about party funding or campaign funding—need to be looked at in the round. It would be bizarre if, for example, the ceiling on funding for a referendum campaign was totally out of kilter with the ceiling on party election funding for a general or local election. Those issues need to be considered comprehensively, in the round, as the Neill committee recommended.

Sir Michael Spicer: It was the Neill committee that drew the distinction between endorsement of policy and consultation about policy, which is what a referendum is all about. That was a fundamental point within the Neill committee, and much flows from that.

Mr. Dismore: I do not believe that that greatly affects my argument. I believe that a single body should oversee all the aspects of involving the electorate in the decision-making process, whether it be through elections or referendums, to ensure that we have a comprehensive way of supervising those things that knits together and does not produce contradictory and conflicting ideas.

Mr. Linton: Does my hon. Friend agree with the evidence that the Labour party submitted to the Neill committee—but that, sadly, does not appear in its report and is not incorporated into the Bill—that there should be a limit of £5 million on what a party spends in a referendum campaign, and of £500,000 on what any outside organisation spends, to prevent the huge spending that has been mentioned? At one stage, Paul Sykes said that he might give £20 million to the no side in a

referendum campaign. Whatever one's view on that, such huge donations risk distorting a campaign. The Bill would benefit from a limit on spending.

Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know that he has done a great deal of work on all the issues relating to elections and referendums. He makes a valid point and I hope to return to it. Whatever emerges from the decision-making process, there must be a level playing field and, inevitably, that must include caps on spending during an electoral or referendum campaign.
In that context, we need to consider the issue of donations made by individuals to campaigns, to ensure that those are properly supervised and above board. That is another issue that the Bill does not address, and to which I hope to return shortly.
I shall now consider some of the detail of the Bill. My first concern is that, although the Bill is called the Referendums Bill, nowhere in it do we find a definition of "referendum". There could be a very grey area about whether something was a referendum.
Perhaps I may start my development of this argument by questioning the hon. Member for Blaby about whether a ballot on the future of an individual grammar school would be a referendum in the context of the Bill. As I read the Bill, I believe that a grammar school ballot would fall within the definition, because that ballot would be held under an enactment, which is the criterion that the hon. Gentleman sets for control of the referendum by his proposed referendum commission.

Mr. Robathan: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's wise and wonderful words with great interest for the past 13 minutes. I note, though, that his interest in referendums must be quite new, as he has only recently realised what a referendum means. I trust that he has consulted a dictionary. Could it possibly be that he has been asked—I should like him to state categorically whether this is the case—by a member of the Government to make as long and boring a speech as possible? If he is one of those supine and feeble members of Government parties who do such things, may I assure him, from my greater experience in the House, that it never leads to advancement and always elicits the scorn of his fellows?

Mr. Dismore: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman finds my speech boring. The interventions that I have had from both sides of the House may show that it is not as boring as he says. Perhaps I may return the compliment and say that I found his recitation a little turgid.
The hon. Gentleman questions whether I know what a referendum is. I actually asked that question of him. Perhaps it is my legal training, but, as a lawyer, if I were to take a case—which of course I would not, because I am not taking cases while a Member of Parliament—I might well be asked to construe the Bill. I was going to give one or two examples later of how the legal profession might make a large amount of money out of the Bill. That might be done by taking advantage of the lack of a definition of "referendum".
When the hon. Gentleman intervened, I was giving the example of grammar school ballots. I believe that, as the Bill stands, a referendum commission would look at grammar school ballots, because those ballots are


conducted under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the Education (Grammar School Ballots) Regulations 1998. The Library brief says that categorically.

Judy Mallaber: I am slightly surprised, as a non-lawyer, that my hon. Friend is suggesting that the Bill might apply to referendums on the future of grammar schools—an issue in which I am greatly interested. Will he give me some advice as a lawyer? I do not like to be rude about lawyers, but they are all able to go on at inordinate length about the most nit-picking matters. I believe that it comes naturally to them; they never need to be asked to do so.
Can my hon. Friend give me guidance on clause 2(1)? It appears to me that, when the Bill says that the referendum would apply to
any bill which provides for the holding of a referendum",
it means that it would apply only to a referendum campaign in respect of that referendum—that is, that referendum would have to have been specifically mentioned in the Bill and therefore, on my reading of it—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must sit down when I am speaking. The hon. Lady's interventions are getting longer and longer. I think that she has said enough in this intervention.

Mr. Dismore: I think that I have the thrust of my hon. Friend's point.
It being Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday Sittings).

Education Directorate (Hackney)

11 am

Ms Diane Abbott: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the proposed privatisation of the education directorate in Hackney.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Secretary of State is not proposing to privatise the education directorate in Hackney. He has today written to the leaders of the three political parties in Hackney to say that, having considered the findings of the Office for Standards in Education inspection report on Hackney local education authority, which is published today, he is of the opinion that the LEA is failing to perform a number of functions to an adequate standard, and that he is minded to direct the director of education of Hackney LEA to contract out several functions. Contractors could include public sector or private sector bodies or consortiums. The LEA has been given until 13 April to comment on the proposal. We are determined to ensure that every child in Hackney receives a good education. That is why the Secretary of State is taking this course of action.

Ms Abbott: I begin by thanking Education Ministers for briefing me on this subject yesterday and saying that I did not break the embargo on the information.
I regret very much that no Education Minister felt able to respond to my private notice question. I think that it is unprecedented for a Member to table a private notice question and for it to be accepted by Madam Speaker, but for no Minister from the Department concerned to make themselves available to respond. That shows a rather derisory attitude to the House. [Interruption.] I am afraid I do think that. Indeed, I shall go further.
It was a very bad practice of the previous Government to make announcements at press conferences that should properly have been made on the Floor of the House. I very much regret that my Government have followed that practice. It cannot be right that Ministers are engaged in a press conference instead of reporting to the House on a step of national significance. Ministers clearly believe that today's announcement is of national significance because they were on the "Today" programme this morning, and are holding a major press conference as we speak. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful".] That is why they are not here, and a Treasury Minister is here instead.
I tabled a private notice question because I felt that the matter was of significance far beyond Hackney. Today, Ministers will be taking the first step towards taking control of a key aspect of education away from local democratic control. Local democratic control of education is one of the most important pillars of local democracy, and it should not be undermined lightly. There can be no doubt that the decision on which Ministers are, as we speak, making a statement to the press will take away significant local control over some of the most important areas of education policy.
There has been absolutely no local consultation about this step. It will not do for Ministers to say that they are taking it on behalf of Hackney parents and children, because they have not visited Hackney or consulted


local people. They have certainly not consulted Members of Parliament who represent the area on whether we want any aspects of the education directorate's work put out to tender. I take very seriously that lack of consultation on this unprecedented step.
Putting the most important aspects of the education directorate's work out to tender is an experiment. We have no knowledge of whether it will improve Hackney schools. Ministers should not be experimenting in Hackney if they have no knowledge of whether contracting out the inspectorate and other education directorate functions will improve matters. Precisely because of the borough's problems, Ministers should not be experimenting in Hackney.
I understand that Ministers' proposals will not involve privatising all the LEA's functions, but in a way, that makes matters worse. What is a cannibalised LEA supposed to do? Some functions will be taken away; some will be left to the LEA. Ministers have not explained—either yesterday, or in today's brief and rather cursory statement—how they imagine that an LEA can remain viable following the removal of its key strategic functions.

Mr. David Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady, who has been making an interesting point—but she has been asking questions further to her private notice question for six minutes during time that has been allocated to private Members Bills.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): There is some justification in the right hon. Gentleman's point of order. I trust that the hon. Lady will remember that this is not a debate and will fairly quickly come to the end of her remarks.

Ms Abbott: I take that point of order in good part, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Why did not Ministers feel it appropriate to consult locally before taking this step? Are they confident that a cannibalised LEA will be viable? What will be the role of the education officer? It seems that the education officer will have no control, and be reduced to a monitoring officer. How much will the consultants who are brought in to advise on the contract cost? What proportion of the total contract do Ministers anticipate outside contractors will receive as the management fee for running the LEA?
Will Ministers assure me that, before the contract is finalised and put out to tender, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and I will have the opportunity, on behalf of local people, to see it and comment on it? Do Ministers understand that this step is viewed by people in Hackney with the utmost concern? The lack of consultation and the piecemeal nature of the steps proposed give rise to local concern. I hope that the Economic Secretary will be able to answer my questions.

Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is wrong on the question of the press conference. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Education and Employment are not holding a press conference on Hackney: they are all out of London on departmental business, and that is why I am answering the private notice question. I am not sure

whether my hon. Friend raised the form of the announcement with Education Ministers when she met them yesterday, but I think the matter might appropriately be pursued with them.

Ms Abbott: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Hewitt: Perhaps I may make a little progress in answering the very large number of questions that my hon. Friend has put to me.
On the issue of democratic control of education in Hackney, elected members in Hackney and their electors will receive better advice and a better service from efficient contractors on a number of extremely important functions relating to Hackney schools than they have been receiving from inefficient officers. Elected members will continue to have responsibilities, and to be accountable to the electorate, but they will not be able to intervene in professional matters which are properly the preserve of officers.
On the issue of the experiment to which my hon. Friend referred, let me make it quite clear that this course of action is based on overwhelming evidence of the failure, despite recent improvements, of Hackney council to provide a proper education to Hackney children. There have been two inspections of Hackney LEA—the first in 1997—and a Government-funded improvement team worked with the authority for some time. It is clear that some progress, which we welcome, has been made but it is also clear that, in other respects, the progress has been quite unsatisfactory. Taken as a whole, the Ofsted report on the LEA that is published today is damning. Hackney LEA itself has accepted that it is a fair report. Our intention is not to experiment with the education of Hackney children, but to ensure that they get a decent education.

Ms Abbott: rose—

Ms Hewitt: I give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister must complete her remarks. She cannot give way.

Ms Hewitt: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
On the question of the cost of the consultants, the Department will bear that cost. The consultants are simply being used to ensure that the contracting-out specifications are drawn up in the most efficient way.
With regard to the involvement of local Members of Parliament, I very much hope that my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) will work with Ministers in ensuring that, in future, Hackney children get a first-class education.

Mr. David Willetts: I sympathise with the Minister's plight. It is extraordinary that a Treasury Minister is responding to a private notice question that should be answered by an Education Minister. Ministers at the Department for Education and Employment have been active in briefing the media. They have been active on the airwaves. We know that there have been two significant education announcements today, on A-levels


and on Hackney. For no Education Minister, apparently, to be in London this morning is extraordinary. That is an insult to the House.
Of course, one reason why no Education Ministers are present is that at least one Education Minister was a councillor in Hackney. The head of the schools standards branch of the Department was also a councillor in Hackney. Perhaps Ministers are not present because they would be embarrassed to show their faces, given what we know about the record of Hackney council.
Does the Minister agree that the problems in Hackney are part of a wider problem identified in the Audit Commission report published last week on the performance of local education authorities? That showed that, of the 15 worst-performing LEAs, including Hackney, 13 are Labour-controlled—none are Conservative—and Conservative LEAs make up a quarter of the best-performing LEAs. The problems in Hackney are part of the wider problem of the failure of Labour in local government.
Now we are told that, because Labour politicians have failed in local government, another bunch of Labour politicians in central Government will come in and solve the problem. However, the problem can be solved only by giving freedom to the schools. Instead, as the Ofsted press notice states:
Hackney's schools have shown remarkable forbearance and loyalty to the LEA despite the long-term chaos they have experienced. But they are sceptical about the possibility of rapid and sustained improvement. That scepticism is justified.
The Minister admitted that the powers of the LEA are unchanged, the role of the councillors is unchanged, and the new consultants will be employees of the council. The one thing that there will not be is more freedom for the schools. There will be just the opposite: more centralisation and more control.
Does the Minister agree that we have been here before? I remember the previous Minister for School Standards, now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, boldly announcing towards the end of 1997 that he would send in a hit squad to sort out Hackney. As always, the rhetoric was overheated and the reality was disappointing. We will judge the results of the exercise announced today not on the rhetoric surrounding it, but on what happens in Hackney schools.

Ms Hewitt: First, I have already made it clear that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Education and Employment are fully occupied on Government business, and that they are continuing to carry out their extremely energetic programme to raise standards in our schools from the lamentable level reached under the previous Government.
Secondly, on local education authorities, it is hardly surprising that most LEAs are run by Labour councillors. They have been elected overwhelmingly by people across the country, just as the Government were elected by an overwhelming majority. Very few local voters want Conservatives to be in charge of their LEA, and I am not at all surprised.
Thirdly, on the issue of solving the problem by giving more freedom to schools, I stress that the functions that we are proposing to direct the director of education in

Hackney to contract out are planning for school improvements, intervention in schools causing concern, advice on curriculum and professional development, support for secondary schools and improving literacy and language teaching.
Handing over those responsibilities to individual schools which, by definition, have been unable to achieve the desired standards on their own and which have not been getting adequate support from the LEA would not be satisfactory. The answer to the problem is not to withdraw support and leave the schools without adequate support. The answer is to give them proper support.
On the specific question about the contractors, the staff of the private or public sector bodies or consortiums who come in to perform those functions will not be employed by the LEA. They will be employed by the council—I mean the contractor.
There are deep-seated problems in Hackney schools and in the local education authority. We understand the reasons for those problems. We have been working with the council and the LEA to solve them. The decisive action that my right hon. Friend has announced today is further evidence of our determination to ensure that Hackney children get a first-class education in future.

Ms Bridget Prentice: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her comprehensive response to the question, and on being the first person during the 16 minutes of discussion to speak about the importance of providing a decent education to Hackney children, which is presumably what we are here for.
It comes painfully from the Conservative Opposition to speak of overheated rhetoric, when they had 18 years to sort out what was going on in education in Hackney and did nothing about it.
Although I welcome the statement, can my hon. Friend tell the House whether only those functions mentioned in it will be contracted out, or whether it is possible that other functions may be contracted out, if that improves the outcome? The end result must be a better standard of education for Hackney children. The vacuum that has existed over the past few years will now, thank heavens, be filled.

Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I welcome her commitment to the better education of children in Hackney.
On the question whether other functions might be contracted out, we will ask the consultants to examine the case for contracting out finance, personnel, and information and communications technology services, because those are also unsatisfactory. We will ask the consultants whether it would make sense, in the interests of an orderly and cost-effective discharge of the LEA's functions as a whole, for other functions also to be contracted out, and if necessary, to prepared a specification for that purpose.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The one thing that will unite all hon. Members is the proposition that we must serve the interests of the young people of Hackney and their families. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has done the House a service by asking the question.
The Department for Education and Employment, as one of the great Departments of State, has done the nation a disservice by not making a Minister available on a parliamentary working day. The Department arranged today as the date of the publication of the Ofsted report. The Department managed the publication and was prepared for it. The rest of us were not formally notified. That is why our party is represented by the London spokesman, not the education spokesman. The Department has no excuse, and the House should receive an apology at the earliest opportunity.
I hope that the Minister realises that her colleagues have landed her and the Government in a position that is difficult or impossible to defend. Hackney does not have the worst-performing schools in Britain. The Ofsted report shows that schools have improved recently, not got worse. For the Government to announce their proposals without first consulting the democratically elected members of the local education authority, of whatever party and of all parties, and without consulting colleagues in Parliament undermines the principle of education being run by democratic local government.
The Government have made two bad mistakes—first, by not coming to the House to announce their intentions properly and, secondly, by putting forward proposals to contract out services without even talking first to those elected to run them. I ask that they now seek to unwind their mistakes—that they come to councillors in Hackney before making any further decisions, and to Members of this place before breaking the barrier between what should be run by central Government and what should be run by local government, supported rather than undermined by central Government.

Ms Hewitt: The Department talked to the leaders of the three political parties in Hackney yesterday, as well as to the officers and the chair of the education committee. Those contacts were merely part of a long process of discussion that has been taking place since the Government were elected, to try to improve the situation in Hackney. Furthermore, the publication of the Ofsted report and the letter sent by my right hon. Friend today are simply steps in a long process. It is a "minded to direct" letter; it is not a final decision on contracting out. The LEA has a chance to comment on it, and has been given until 13 April to do so. The director of education will continue to have a key role. As I said in an earlier response, the elected councillors of the LEA will continue also to have a key role. I think that the rather over-blown rhetoric used by the hon. Gentleman is not justified by the facts.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has raised this issue. I am pleased also to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that the decision on contracting out is not final and that it is out for comment. Surely it represents a huge change in policy, and not only the House but the Labour party should discuss it in some detail.
I have an interest because Calderdale was the first LEA to be "Ofsteded" in the light of a great deal of extraordinary publicity about the Ridings school. The Conservative Government tried to pretend that we had the worst school in the country, which was nonsensical, as events have proved. Since the Labour Government took office, we have had much help to put things right on that.
In Calderdale, it is clear to anybody that the selective system is the problem. While we have two grammar schools and four opted-out schools, we are left with schools that are secondary moderns. Only a fool would argue against that.
We must have a debate on the whole issue. I am deeply concerned that I heard about it only on the "Today" programme. Like me, my hon. Friend has spent the past 18 years fighting privatisation. My understanding of privatisation was that it involved selling off assets and contracting out. When did that definition change?

Ms Hewitt: I am well aware of, and appreciate, my hon. Friend's concern for the education received by the children in her constituency. I welcome the fact that she has been so active in seeking to improve that situation.
I wish to stress that the action taken and the Ofsted report that has been published today do not represent a criticism of the schools or the teachers in those schools. As my right hon. Friend made clear in his letter to the councillors, he welcomes—as we all do—the improvement that has been shown in several respects. However, the report, despite that improvement in some areas, is a damning criticism of the Hackney LEA, and the situation has to be put right.
My concern, and that of the Government, is not to approach this matter from the standpoint of ideological dogma, but to ensure that the services that must be provided by an LEA to ensure that schools and their head teachers and teachers can carry out their responsibility to give children an excellent education are properly provided. It is a question of what works. What is being provided by Hackney LEA in respect of the functions that we are discussing is not working, and we shall change that situation. I will certainly draw my right hon. and hon. Friends' attention to my hon. Friend's request for a debate.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Will the Minister clarify for the House the annual administrative running costs of Hackney LEA and what proportion of them is accounted for by the services that are to be contracted out? Will those costs be so great that the tendering process will be subject to European Union regulations? If so, how do the Government propose to deal with the hiatus in the running of services during the passage of the tendering process?

Ms Hewitt: I do not have the detailed figures that the hon. Gentleman requests but I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend writes to him on that point. I stress that the process of contracting out some or all of the functions referred to by my right hon. Friend will offer better value for money than wasting public money on an inadequate service. As education is the largest local authority service, we expect it to be possible to have efficiency within the LEA budget. That will be considered in further detail by my right hon. Friend and by the consultants when we come to draw up the specification for the contracts. Of course the tender for the contracts will comply with all the necessary procedures.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I hope that my hon. Friend will give me some reassurance by saying that she will not have any truck with any of the


sanctimonious claptrap that we have heard from Opposition spokespersons about why she is at the Government Dispatch Box today.
My hon. Friend is entirely right to focus on the quality of the advice offered by the LEA. I ask her to contrast the record in Hackney with that in Harrow, where a new Labour administration is delivering high-quality, effective support and advice to schools. I invite her to praise Pinner Wood middle school in my constituency, which has just received an excellent report, partly because of the quality of advice that has been given to it by the LEA.

Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point. I am happy to congratulate not only the school in his constituency, which has received an excellent report, but all the schools in the country that have been making dramatic progress in raising standards, with the help of their LEAs and the Department for Education and Employment under the Government's leadership.

Referendums Bill

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mrs. Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) continues, will you give your view on the scope of the Bill and, therefore, the limits of our discussion? As I read it, it is tightly worded on the mechanics of holding a referendum when the Government of the day have proposed that a specific issue should be dealt with in that way, and therefore would exclude discussions of matters such as referendums among parents should a school decide to consider becoming grant maintained, and other diversions which have been introduced by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), who seems to be more interested in filibustering this Bill than in dealing with the important issues that it raises.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The Second Reading of a Bill gives quite wide scope for discussion and debate on the principles of the Bill, and so far this morning that is precisely what we have had.

Mr. Dismore: I think that, before the private notice question I had just taken an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley in the context of grammar school ballots. My hon. Friend's forensic skills are excellent because I think that she has highlighted a contradiction within the Bill. She drew my attention to clause 2(1), which refers to the holding of a referendum campaign and the designation of that campaign
soon…after the introduction to Parliament
of a Bill. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to clause 4(1), to which I referred in the context of grammar school ballots. It states:
The Commission shall make a report to the Secretary of State on the conduct of any referendum conducted under any enactment.
The grammar school ballots are being conducted under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the Grammar School (Ballots) Regulations 1998. The Bill would inevitably cover grammar school ballots and the importance of that will become apparent as I proceed with my remarks.
Local referendums are being used increasingly throughout local government. The Government are encouraging that through the White Paper "Modern Local Government, In Touch With the People". Paragraph 3.30 on page 32, which has the heading
support for a directly elected mayor",
refers, first, to the Greater London authority ballot. It states that
before a council could adopt arrangements which include a directly elected mayor, it should be required to conduct a referendum on its proposals giving local people the opportunity to have their say.
I assume from the Bill's wording that it would apply to a referendum on the election of a mayor for a local authority.
In paragraph 4.8 on page 39 of the White Paper, the Government again stress the importance of referendums in the local government context:
The Government believes that councils should see and use referendums as an important tool to give local people a bigger say. The Government will therefore introduce legislation to confirm the power of councils to hold referendums.
The White Paper says that referendums may or may not be binding
except in the particular circumstances described
and adds:
Councils might wish to use referendums to consult their local people on such issues as major local developments or matters of particular local controversy.
I assume, therefore, that the Bill would apply to such ballots as well. Page 45 of the House of Commons Library briefing helpfully refers to recent precedent. It says that Milton Keynes council conducted a referendum, in February 1999, seeking
the views of the electorate on three options for increasing council tax levels for 1999/2000.
Returning to a point that I have already made during an intervention, let me point out that that referendum gave three options for increasing council tax levels. Bearing in mind the point that I made about clause 2(2), there could be at least three different outcomes and three different campaigns on that proposition. There could have been a fourth and a fifth option.
My local authority in Barnet has taken the Government's point of view to heart and has started to consult widely. There was wide consultation with the population on the council's draft budget. I am not sure whether that would count as a referendum, but my local authority is also experimenting with the use of electronic voting machines, citizens' juries and citizens' panels as part of that consultation process. I know from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman), who gave me a full briefing on those issues last night, that similar proposals are being discussed in Hammersmith.
My principal point is that the Bill lacks a definition of a referendum, and that is a problem. As things stand, clause 4(1) provides such a broad interpretation that all the possibilities to which I have referred could be taken into account by the Bill and local referendums could come under the influence of the proposed referendum commission, but is that a development that we should welcome?
Although we may want guidelines on the conduct of referendums in general to be laid down, I am concerned about the wide powers proposed by the Bill for the referendums commission to interfere in the conduct of referendums. I question whether it would be appropriate for a national body to get involved in the decision-making processes of a local referendum—for example, the setting of a question. I do not know how a national body could take on board all the relevant local factors; there may need to be sub-divisions or local referendum commissions if the national body is to have such wide scope.
In the context of grammar school ballots and local mayoral referendums, that issue also raises the question of fairness in the trigger arrangements, such as the petitions that could set off a grammar school ballot. I know from discussions with parents in my constituency that they are extremely concerned about the fairness of

the arrangements for the trigger mechanism in respect of a ballot on grammar schools in Barnet. They think that those mechanisms are, to some extent, rigged against people who want grammar schools to be abolished, bearing in mind that substantial thresholds must be achieved to trigger a ballot. I question the Bill's current drafting. If it is to proceed, it should be redrafted to make it absolutely clear that it deals only with national referendums and that local referendums should not come into its scope.
My next concern relates to the powers proposed for the referendum commission under clause 1(5)(a), which refers to
the wording of any question to be put".
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) raised his concerns about the fairness of the questions for the London referendum. I shall return to that point in detail, and I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased to hear that. The right hon. Gentleman questioned whether the commission should have the power to be involved in the setting of the question.
Hon. Members will remember that there was extensive debate in the House on what the questions for the London referendum should be. The House came to a conclusion and voted on it. That conclusion formed part of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998. The House decided what the question should be, so I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting that the referendum commission should be in a position to overrule the Act of Parliament that set the question and impose a different question of its own, a series of questions or variations on the questions.
That serious point is not properly addressed by clause 1(5)(a) and comes into even sharper focus when we consider the possibility of a referendum of electoral reform. The Government have said that the referendum will have the first-past-the-post system as one option and a proportional representation system as the other. I remain an avid supporter of the first-past-the-post system and have yet to hear anything that would convince me otherwise. We know from the extensive public debate on PR and the full report produced by the Jenkins commission that there are a plethora of different solutions for electoral reform.
Let us suppose that the Government decided to propose a particular option for electoral reform as part of the process relating to the wording of the question and that the referendum commission decided that it preferred a different option. Would it be open to the referendum commission to interfere with the Government's suggested option and to suggest a different option?
Indeed, could the referendum commission second-guess the Government's position and allow the referendum to have not only the first-past-the-post system and one other option, but a series of options? In respect of clause 2(2), that opens the question of how many different campaigns could be undertaken. There could be a whole series of different campaigns and different outcomes. Presumably, all would qualify for public funds—an issue that the Bill fails to address.
I have another concern about clause 2(1). My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley was concerned


about the timing of the referendum. I question the wording, which says that it would come into operation
As soon as possible after the introduction to Parliament of any bill".
Opposition Members have made their position clear: they wold like to see the referendum campaign conducted fairly, above board and with no one feeling left out. The wording of clause 2(1) could lead to a premature decision about which campaign would be the favoured campaign. It very much favours the establishment.
We know that in the European campaign the sides are already lining up. Page 34 of the Library brief says:
The pro and anti organisations have begun to mobilise. The Britain in Europe campaign, led by prominent business people, looks likely to be the main umbrella organisation for a Yes vote, while David Owen has agreed to lead the organisations likely to oppose a single currency, known as New Europe. This may not encompass all the views of those opposed to a single currency.
That is precisely my point. We have two relatively established campaigns on the European issue, but, as the public debate develops, and should a referendum Bill be introduced, other campaigns may be created. Those would have an equal right to be considered as the official campaign. Under the Bill, they would become disfranchised and the two establishment campaigns—not the Government campaign—would be left to slug it out among themselves. That would disfranchise people who are interested in single issues and who, to a large extent, feel excluded from the parliamentary process. I should be extremely concerned, therefore, if the wording of clause 2 were to stay as it is, as it suggests that the referendum campaign process should start as soon as possible after the enactment of the Bill, before the public debate on those issues had begun.
I am also concerned about clause 2(2), which lists as the criteria that should be taken into account
the ability to conduct an effective campaign; the views of political parties; the degree of public support; and such other matters as the Commission considers relevant"—
which is an open question. However, the clause gives no indication of the weighting to be given to each of those criteria. That is an important factor to take into account when deciding which body should be certified to run the campaign.
We heard earlier this morning about the problems that can arise when different parties within a campaign are dealing with other issues. The Europe campaign is a prime example. May I pray in aid the comments of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who is in the Chamber, during the debate on political parties funding on 9 November 1998? I find myself in a difficult position because, for the second time in three weeks, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The previous occasion was on the Fur Fanning (Prohibition) Bill. That is a strange position for me to be in and he may find it strange to have me on his side on this issue. He said:
It is unnecessary and undesirable to require opponents to operate under one political umbrella, even if they support the same side on a political question. There are quite different ideological routes that might lead to the same case. That is obviously clear with the campaign that would emerge against the single European currency. It comprises a host of very different groups reflecting different ideological backgrounds. I believe that it would be a restraint on free speech to impose any sort of financial limit on those groups collectively.
Those groups would be handicapped if one side or the other within that debate were made the official campaign. In the same debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made a similar point:

I expect different people to have different points of view. In case the Whips are listening I point out that I declared in my general election manifesto: 'I shall vote against a single currency.'"— [Official Report, 9 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 104–07.]
My hon. Friend came to that conclusion by a different route from some Conservative Members on the Euro-sceptic wing of their party. If we have the referendum campaign that has been promised if the Government decide that it would be wise to join the single currency, my hon. Friend may join the no campaign, but he will do so for different reasons and will put forward his views in different ways. If there is only one official campaign, it will be extremely difficult for both sides to express their views fully and fairly.
In a helpful intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley raised the issue of Northern Ireland. That is well highlighted in the Library brief that we have been given for this debate, which says:
By contrast, in the referendum campaign the reasons for voting Yes or No may be exceedingly large in number, extremely disparate and possibly even contradictory. The Yes campaign in Northern Ireland, with the Ulster Unionists, the SDLP and Sinn Fein all on one side, and Republican splinter groups and the DUP on the other, provides a vivid illustration. Future referendum campaigns on electoral reform or on joining the European Economic Monetary Union could easily take the same form … Given this possibility, we believe that speaking to impose spending limits in referendums would not only be administratively impracticable but would, or at least might, impose an unwarranted restriction on freedom of speech.
Thus, the point is made in a number of different ways that various groups could be disfranchised under the Bill.
Similarly, the problem could arise if there are a number of different options. Earlier, I mentioned the London debate. Had the Opposition parties had their way, we would have had a complicated ballot paper and a series of different possible outcomes: there could have been one campaign against everything; one for a mayor only and no tax-raising powers; one for a mayor and tax-raising powers; one for an assembly only and no tax-raising powers; one for an assembly and tax-raising powers; one for an assembly, a mayor and tax-raising powers; and one for an assembly, a mayor and no tax-raising powers. That is seven possible outcomes and, under clause 2(2), seven possible campaigns. I question whether that would lead to a fair outcome. It would mean six parties working within the referendum supporting London government and only one campaign opposing all those options.
Therefore, the Bill would achieve exactly the opposite of what it is trying to achieve—equity and balance between the different sides in a referendum—because six different campaigns would be competing in favour of London government of some sort and only one would be opposed. The hon. Member for Blaby would say that that could not possibly happen. Looking at the Bill as a lawyer, I believe that, if I were representing one of those six options and found that my campaign would not be certified under clause 2(2), I would rush off to the law courts for a judicial review demanding my share of the action. We may find people with different viewpoints wishing to challenge the referendum commission by way of judicial review. People who get involved in referendums can be quite litigious and forceful in their views. They may wish to challenge the decision about which campaign should be supported.
Clause 3(1) brings into play the issue of funding and clause 3(2) that of broadcasting. My remarks on London very much bring that home.

Mr. Letwin: I shall not intervene for more than five seconds. As the hon. Gentleman is determined to speak for another 20 minutes, it would be helpful if he explained why he is bothering to filibuster the Bill rather than just continuing to witter endlessly to no purpose.

Mr. Dismore: I am not attempting to filibuster the Bill. When I began to read up on it, I became increasingly concerned about its wording. Sooner or later, if the Bill were to proceed, lawyers would come to construe it, and I see a minefield of detail from which my professional colleagues could make a huge amount of money. I am highlighting my concerns about the wording of the Bill and the enormous loopholes that it contains.

Mr. Robathan: I have listened attentively to the hon. Gentleman's absolutely fascinating comments. Has he been asked by any member of the Government to make as lengthy a speech as possible? I guarantee to ensure that he is on the Committee for the Bill, where he can make all his points at as much turgid length as he wants. Let me repeat my earlier warning to him that those who do the bidding of the Whips in a supine and feeble manner never achieve the respect of their peers, nor that of the Whips. Nor do they gain advancement.

Mr. Dismore: I am not making my speech with any view to advancement. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman now finds my remarks fascinating, having previously suggested that he found them boring. I must be winning him round with my cogent points.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us are listening to his speech with great interest? Many who support the general principle of a level playing field and more openness in the conduct of referendums also feel that the cumulative effect of the various defects and lacunae of the Bill mean that it should not be given a First Reading—[HON. MEMBERS: "Second Reading."] I apologise; I meant a Second Reading.

Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend succinctly makes the point that is the main thrust of my speech. I do not believe that we should not legislate on this matter: we should. However, we should do so comprehensively and in a thought-through way after having had the benefit of substantial public debate. We might, perhaps, take up the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley that we could have pre-scrutiny of a properly drafted Government Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) is quite right to say that the Bill is so full of holes that it will not hold water.

Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dismore: I need to make some progress.

Mr. Robathan: Come off it.

Mr. Dismore: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would want me to make some progress. I have given way to him several times already.

Mrs. Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have long experience of the way in which

the House conducts itself. The hon. Gentleman has been on his feet for more than 40 minutes, and many of us wish to contribute our views on the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not know that the civilised behaviour of the House requires that hon. Members should not abuse their opportunity to speak by keeping debate going longer than is necessary on issues that are not relevant to the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All the remarks made0 by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) have been entirely in order.

Mr. Dismore: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should I stray from the terms of the Bill, I am sure that you will quickly call me to order.
I was discussing funding before that batch of interventions. I was making a point about the severe distorting effect that a plethora of campaigns could have on funding if the Bill were enacted.
Clause 3(2) relates to broadcasting, and the same problem of possible disproportionality emerges there. There is also a risk of giving credibility to one or two dotty causes. During general election campaigns, broadcasts are awarded in proportion to the number of candidates standing for each party. That is right and proper, as it provides a rough reflection of possible support for the party in question.
I am concerned, however, that the Bill's reference to equivalent coverage may prove anti-democratic. It might give great credibility to an idea, perspective or point of view that frankly deserves little consideration. I share the objective of trying to achieve fairness, but fairness does not necessarily amount to equivalence. Fairness must reflect the broad terms of the debate, and, as I have already said about the European debate, equivalence of coverage for official campaigns—perhaps on Europe, perhaps on proportional representation—would create a strong chance that a disparate range of views could be disfranchised in the referendum process. People might not be able to put their point of view or say how and why they had come to it. They would not be able, perhaps, to influence people of similar views to vote in a particular way in a given referendum.
I should be very concerned if the broadcasting provisions in the Bill were to be enacted as phrased. They could have an effect opposite to that intended.

Mr. Stephen Twigg: When I read the Bill in preparation for the debate, it struck me that the second part of clause 3 is not only counterproductive, but unnecessary. It adds nothing to the existing requirement for balance and impartiality in current broadcasting legislation. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is so, and that it would be foolhardy of the House to add unnecessarily to legislation in this area when the existing framework is sufficient?

Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend, who has studied these issues carefully and written widely on electoral reform, makes a valid point. I am concerned about clause 3(2) because I believe it could have the opposite effect to that sought by the Bill's supporters. I return to what I said at the beginning of my speech: we need an election commission that can consider all the issues in the round and ensure that we have a consistent national policy for


referendums and elections. That would provide a balanced approach, with nothing to suggest that anything was out of kilter.
The final part of my speech is perhaps the most important. It relates to my earlier interventions on the hon. Member for Blaby about what the Bill does not deal with and what it misses out. My starting point was the recommendations of the Neill committee, and funding in particular. The Bill deals in a fashion with public funding to provide core support for referendum campaigns, which would perhaps be uprated by comparison with that for the 1975 referendum on Europe, although I suspect that the uprated figures would in fact bear little relationship to the amounts that would be needed. The Bill is totally silent on some key recommendations of the Neill report—in particular recommendations 90, 91 and 92. Recommendation 90 states:
Donations to campaigning individuals and organisations in referendums from one source which total £5,000 or more should be publicly disclosed in audited accounts which should be delivered to the Election Commission within three months of the holding of the referendum".
The Bill contains nothing about donations having to be declared.
Recommendation 91 is:
Campaigning individuals and organisations other than political parties that wish to incur 'referendum expenses' of £25,000 or more, should register, like a political party, with the Election Commission. No individual or organisation not so registered may incur expenses in connection with a referendum in excess of £25,000".
Again, there is no mention of that in the Bill.
Recommendation 92 is:
Campaigning individuals and organisations taking part in referendum campaigns should be restricted to the receipt of donations only from a 'permissible source'.
The report goes into detail on what permissible sources are. I do not propose to go into those, given the time constraints under which I am operating but, as has been pointed out, page 20 of the Library briefing, on the European campaign, states:
There may be disparities of expenditure in the campaign on the single European currency, especially as the business man Paul Sykes has reportedly promised £20 million to the anti-euro campaign.
For a Bill on the supervision of referendums not to deal with that crucial issue of funding is a woeful omission. That issue goes to the heart of the democratic process. If Mr. Sykes is going to commit £20 million of his own money to that campaign without any restriction—without fear or favour—or control from the Bill, it will have a distorting effect on the process.

Mrs. Gorman: Surely the logic of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that, if the Bill became part of the law of the land, people such as Mr. Sykes would not need to put up their hard-earned cash to ensure a fair campaign. Massive contributions of that sort could be excluded and I should think that Mr. Sykes and anyone with similar amounts of money would be delighted to keep that money.

Mr. Dismore: That is an interesting point. The limits on central Government support from public funds for the different campaigns are significantly lower than the sort

of money that Mr. Sykes is talking about. The figures being bandied around are in the region of £600,000. I do not think one could mount much of a national campaign on an issue as important as the European referendum or the voting system for this place with such a sum. My argument is that it is not merely a question of core funding, with which the Bill deals to an extent, but of all the other party-funding issues raised by the Neill committee, which are transferred within the three recommendations from the Neill report to the context of referendums.
If we do not have open declarations of election funding and proper registration, we will be open to being hijacked by millionaires who want to promote their own political point of view. We saw the extent to which the late Sir James Goldsmith tried to influence the general election by setting up the Referendum party. He threw huge amounts of cash into the campaign to try to create a political process and, to an extent, influenced the election—the issue certainly came up on the doorstep far more than it might otherwise have done.
Unless we have restrictions of some sort on individual campaign donations I can see Mr. Sykes thinking, "With my business, I have a lot at stake as well as the country," and being more than happy to put up £20 million of his money because he can afford it to influence the outcome of that campaign. That crucial issue is not dealt with in the Bill in any way.
Finally, I shall deal with the Neill report and, most importantly, the role of Government, I am sure that you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I asked the hon. Member for Blaby during his opening speech why the Bill was silent on that matter. He said that it was a matter for the referendum commission to consider. Frankly, that is not good enough. We have wide and diverse views on that issue. The hon. Gentleman suggests in promoting the Bill that the Neill committee would be the transitional referendum commission, unless and until something better happened along. Recommendation 89 of the Neill committee dealt with that point, stating:
The government of the day in future referendums should, as a government, remain neutral and should not distribute at public expense literature, even purportedly 'factual' literature, setting out or otherwise promoting its case".
That is a fascinating comment. It is entirely at odds with the conclusions of the Jenkins commission on electoral reform—the independent commission on the voting system. Indeed, the Jenkins report came to the opposite conclusion. Paragraph 166 states:
The representations have without exception placed strong emphasis on the need for a publicly-funded (and therefore impartially informative rather than partisan) civic education programme to prepare the general public for the decision they would be asked to make on the voting system which should follow this report.
Paragraph 168 seems to pray in aid the Neill committee, but perhaps does not help it, by calling for
an independent body to oversee the conduct of referendums, although we think that the Government should be entitled to express its own view in any such referendum. It seems to us that an Electoral Commission would be best placed to discharge this role in relation to the referendum on the voting system.
Two eminent committees reached opposite conclusions on this crucial issue. The hon. Member for Blaby ducked that question, which is fundamental. A leading complaint of Opposition parties has concerned the extent to which


the Government should be entitled to participate in referendum campaigns. The Bill's supporters rightly want to ensure that the debate is fair and above board. That demands a proper public information campaign. Electoral matters are complex. I have read about them and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) has written a book on the subject. How are we to expect the public to form a view without explanations beyond the partisan?
Those of us who support first past the post argue our position vigorously, as do those who support electoral reform. Where is the point of view that puts the middle ground? Of all issues, the election of this Chamber demands a public information campaign, as recommended by Jenkins but apparently dismissed by Neill. The same applies to our possible entry to the euro. There are two diametrically opposed views with a plethora of different opinions within them. How are the public to sort the wood from the trees without a clear lead from the Government on the fundamental issues?
Since the general election, I have spent most weekends in my constituency knocking on people's doors and talking to them about the issues of the day, as I did before the election. Time and again, Europe comes up but it is not raised in an informed way. It tends to be, "We don't want the Germans, French or Italians telling us what to do," rather than detailed analysis of the crucial issues facing the British economy. It is incumbent on the Government to advance them.
Page 18 of the Library brief refers to the Good Friday agreement referendum in Northern Ireland, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. The document states:
The referendum on the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland affords a different kind of example. The Government sent copies of the whole agreement to every household, but then, as a Government, confined itself to urging people to turn out to vote. Despite that, the Government made its position perfectly clear. Mr. Denis Murray, the BBC's Ireland correspondent, said in his oral evidence:
Mo Mowlam got the tone for the Government absolutely right. Somebody asked her, 'Are you biased in this?' She replied, 'I didn't spend five years on this and a year at Stormont, hammering it out, not to say I'm going to back this agreement.' She got the public mood exactly right. People said, 'Yes, that's fair enough.'
It is wrong not to anticipate that the Government would have a point of view in advancing a referendum. It is important that the public has before it the facts, presented in a non-partisan way. If the only people entitled to campaign are those with a partisan view, the public cannot get that. I am amazed that the hon. Member for Blaby has ducked that fundamental question. It is not an easy question to answer. That is why two high-powered committees have different perspectives on it. I again pray in aid the helpful intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley. She suggested that there could be pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill on the subject. The issue could be explored in depth so that much stronger and better legislation came out at the other end of the process.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman has attempted to demolish the Bill, but it will be helpful to the House if we hear from him whether he takes the view not only that the issues are important—something that he has made clear—but that it is urgent that they be dealt with.

Mr. Dismore: I do regard the issues as important. That is why I have spent some time analysing them in detail.

I believe that the Bill is fatally flawed, for the reasons that I have given. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we need to get on with the matter. That is why I welcome the statement by the Home Secretary, which was emphasised by the Lord Chancellor in my quotation, that the Government propose to produce their draft Bill in the summer. That will enable time for pre-legislative scrutiny, perhaps through the autumn.
I should very much like to see a Bill introduced in the next Session of Parliament, but I shall not press my hon. Friend the Minister on that, because it is not for him to say what will or will not be in the Queen's Speech. I should like to see a Bill not only on referendums but on a series of other issues. If I had the difficult job of ranking Bills that the Cabinet faces, I am not sure that I would know which should come this year and which should come next year.
I certainly agree with the basic point that this is an urgent matter. I should like to see some progress on it, but I regret to say that the Bill does not provide the answers to some of the difficult points raised by the Neill committee and the Jenkins commission.

Mr. John MacGregor: The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) has given the game away, and in a very unsubtle manner. About 30 minutes ago, I was going to commend him on one thing only, and that was on his industry, and say that that would no doubt earn him brownie points from the Government Whips Office. He has gone about his speech in such a cack-handed manner that he has now exposed exactly what the operation is, and I do not think that he will get any brownie points. He has led us even to become suspicious of the Government's intentions. If this is how the Government tackle a debate such as today's, will they delay the legislation on referendums in exactly the same way? I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that a reputation for filibustering is not a good criterion for office.
The House knows that I was a member of the Neill committee, and still am, and was a member of the committee that drew up the report on political funding. I shall be very brief in my remarks because I have little time. I shall draw heavily on the Neill committee, but I also want to speak as a Member of Parliament. The first question is why the committee included a big chapter on referendums in the report. The issues and questions document on political funding that we originally issued did not treat referendums as a central issue. It was the almost universal evidence that we received from day one that led us to the view that referendums were a crucial matter and that committee had to address it.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on introducing the Bill, which he did in an admirable manner. He drew attention to what Peter Riddell said on day 1 of our evidence. It is worth quoting it again. He said that referendums had:
massive implications, I think, for your exercise, for the way in which the political process operates, for fairness in funding and indeed for fairness in operation.
That comment was mirrored time and again subsequently, and it became clear that we had to address the issue.
It became clear as we went round the country, especially in Wales and Scotland, that the system used in recent referendums by the Government was seriously


deficient and dangerously so. That was overwhelmingly evident. Almost everyone who gave evidence to us in Cardiff said that the way in which the Wales referendum was conducted was seriously deficient. There would not have been a no campaign if one member of the Labour party, Mrs. Carys Pugh, had not decided to go to her bank manager and ask for an overdraft of £4,000. She made that clear in her evidence to us.
Robert Hodge was so impressed by that that he gave a much larger sum—about £80,00—to the campaign. Overall, the no campaign had about £100,000, but the point is that nothing would have happened unless Mrs. Pugh had gone to a bank manager, whereas the yes campaign was backed by massive Government funding, far greater than anything that the no campaign could raise. No one can be certain whether that made a difference to the final result, but we know that the result was extremely close, so one wonders what the outcome would have been had there been fair funding. All of us on the committee were enormously impressed by the evidence that we received from everyone who contributed.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that occasionally it might be necessary artificially to create a campaign, so as to ensure that there are two sides in a referendum on any issue?

Mr. MacGregor: Of course I am not saying that. My point is that there must be a reasonable element of core funding for both sides. It is expensive to run a campaign and it was only Mrs. Pugh's courage in going to a bank manager that got the no campaign's funding off the ground. I cannot stress sufficiently strongly my belief that, for the sake of democracy and of giving a fair hearing to both sides in future campaigns, the implementation of proposals along the lines set out in the Bill and by the Neill committee is absolutely essential.
Because of the long filibuster that we have just heard, I shall confine myself to only a few points of detail. First, there is the referendums commission—or what members of the Neill committee would regard as the election commission detailed in our report. I fully understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby has had to make that limited recommendation. He made it perfectly clear that he assumes that the referendums commission would be subsumed in the election commission set up when the full Bill on party political funding is finally produced and implemented. However, the reason for his having to propose a referendums commission in a Bill entirely dedicated to that subject is his concern, shared by many of us, that the Government will procrastinate on the issue. Clause 1(5) sets out a role for the referendums commission that is exactly like the role the Neill committee envisaged for the election commission. No doubt, it could be developed, but that can be done in Committee.
My second point relates to the crucial issue of core funding. I have already spoken about what happened in Wales, which is at the heart of my case. The Neill committee suggested a minimum of £600,000, but that was simply a figure derived from indexing what was spent on both sides during the 1975 campaign, and whether it is sufficient is a matter of argument. I think that that should be the minimum sum, and a reasonable argument could be made that it should be slightly more.
One or two people argued—I think the argument was made in the official evidence of the Labour party to the Neill committee—that political parties form the basis of campaigning in referendums. I do not agree, because it is fairly clear—it will be extremely clear in the two forthcoming referendums—that the issues cross parties. Therefore, it is essential to have national organisations that are recognised and registered by the election commission—or the referendums commission—as the organised bodies to which core funding should be paid. The one point on which I wholly agreed with the hon. Member for Hendon was in respect of first past the post; I just hope that he does not speak in any debate on first past the post, because he will absolutely ruin the case for it.
Core funding lies at the heart of the matter. I believe that the Bill could go further, because it does not positively state that core funding from taxpayers' resources will be made, but merely sets outs the conditions for such payments. It is essential that the Bill should state that that core funding will actually happen.
My next point goes beyond core funding, to other important issues. As in general election campaigns for election addresses, there should be compulsory free mailing for both sides in a referendum campaign. That should not extend only to a single document, as was done in 1975, if memory serves; it is right that both sides should be able to put out separate and individual free mailing. That is important because the cost of free mailing in general election campaigns is quite high. It is also important that correspondence is sent to every household in the country. I also believe that election broadcasts by both sides should be part of the process so that there may be communication through television.
Related to core funding is the question of disclosure and foreign donations. It would be sensible if the same principles governing party political funding in general elections were to apply to referendums. I foresee no difficulty in that regard.
The Home Secretary's views about the Government's role differ from those of the Neill committee. In previous debates, the Home Secretary has used that as an excuse for offering qualifications and for expressing reservations about the Neill recommendations.

Mr. Linton: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because he follows these matters carefully.

Mr. Linton: I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman was about to move on to the question of funding limits. His convincing arguments about fairness in referendum campaigns—involving core funding, free mail and disclosure of donations—should lead to calls for funding limitations. It is possible for a referendum campaign to be unfair because one side is completely unfunded and must apply to the bank for a loan to set up the campaign. However, it is equally possible for a referendum campaign to be skewed unfairly because one side is funded disproportionately. There were spending ratios of 10:1 in the New Zealand campaign and 20:1 in the 1975 referendum campaign. The next referendum campaign on


the single currency could be skewed the other way because donations have already been promised. Why did the Neill committee—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Mr. MacGregor: That was almost a speech. I did not intend to address that issue today as I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to contribute.
The Neill committee came to a conclusion about expenditure limits in referendums in paragraph 12.47 of the report, which states:
Given this possibility,"—
we sought to differentiate between referendum and general election campaigns—
we believe that seeking to impose spending limits in referendums would not only be administratively impracticable but would, or at least might, impose an unwarranted restriction on freedom of speech.
I agreed with that conclusion, which is why I offered a minority recommendation against expenditure limits in general election campaigns. Those are the sorts of arguments that the committee worked through, and I tend to agree with them. Real abuse occurs when a lot of Government funding goes to one side of the campaign and no public funding is available to the other side. That is why core funding is so important.
I return to the Home Secretary's comments about the role of Government, where I think there has been some misunderstanding in the past. In the debate on the Neill report, I pointed out that the wording of that report could have been better and more precise. I think Lord Neill also expressed that view in a letter to the Home Secretary.
The committee sought to avoid double funding by taxpayers of one side of the campaign. For example, if the majority of the Government were in favour of a yes vote in a particular campaign, we thought that it would be unfair if that case were to receive core as well as Government funding. We would never allow that to occur in a general election, and our recommendation addresses that anomaly.
Of course, Ministers should be free to campaign for a yes or no result, as they wish. That is made clear in the report, which says:
We believe it is perfectly appropriate for the government of the day to state its views and for members of the Government to campaign vigorously during referendum campaigns".
It is important to emphasise that Ministers are perfectly entitled to campaign and, in my opinion, to use material from the civil service, in favour of a particular policy. That happens in general elections, because there is often civil service input in policy development. However, Ministers are not entitled to use Government resources during the campaign, such as using money to distribute leaflets that put only one side of the case, or using Government cars.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacGregor: No, time is short.
That is such a narrow point that the Home Secretary should not make anything of it by suggesting that the overall package put forward by Neill is flawed. There is no disagreement on that narrow point, so I hope that no more will be made of it.
My conclusion is that there has been strong universal support from many parts of the country for the Neill committee's recommendations on referendums. The Government, in their heart, believe that there is a fair case for those recommendations, and I hope that they will not try to continue to run the argument about Governments not being able to make known their views.
It is important that the Government state clearly in this debate what they intend to do. I strongly urge that their actions follow the lines of the Bill and the Neill recommendations. Above all—I very much agree with the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) on this point—there is much suspicion that the issue might drag on and arise late in the day before a referendum takes place—so, if the Government intend to filibuster on the Bill, I urge them to introduce legislation as quickly as possible.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: When the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) made the case for his Bill, he said that it was short and simple. In considering the Bill, we must ask whether it is adequate to deal with complex and wide-ranging issues. I have listened to the comments of several hon. Members, and it is clear that the issues are ones of principle and of significant detail.
Referendums will become increasingly important. We know that there is to be a referendum on joining economic and monetary union and we expect one on electoral change. Referendums are also likely to be held on devolution to the English regions. The Government are encouraging referendums for a wide range of activities relating to local government.
The principle of holding more and more referendums highlights the relationship between elected authorities and the people who elect them. It raises questions of the legitimacy of those referendums and of parliamentary democracy itself. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that it is vital that referendums are conducted so that the results are credible and do not undermine elected authority. I am convinced that statutory regulation is required to achieve that. We must consider carefully the processes by which referendums take place and their results can be assessed. What we are considering today is whether the Bill, described by its promoter as short and simple, deals adequately with those important and fundamental issues of constitution and practice.
The major difficulty with the Bill is the scope of the referendums and the different types of decisions with which it is designed to deal, and the scope of the proposed referendums commission, which would deal with matters relating to economic and monetary union, electoral change, devolution and, presumably, local government referendums. It is clear that we are going to have more and more referendums in local government. Indeed, we are told that there may be legislation on that. The White Paper on local government reform referred to specific new legislation giving specific powers to local authorities to carry out more referendums. Is the Bill to supersede such legislation? Would it be compatible with it? Is it intended to embrace it? We simply do not know.
The question of local government legislation for referendums and the scope of future referendums is extremely important. The Government's stated policies


envisage the Government themselves enforcing local government referendums on local authorities considering whether to change their structure. They envisage the public being able to trigger a referendum on having a directly elected mayor; they envisage compulsory referendums before a directly elected mayor can be installed; and they encourage referendums as tools of consultation on controversial local issues. Clearly, these are wide-ranging measures which encourage more referendums.

Dr. Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as she seems about to say, the Bill is silent on the question of what might be termed citizens' propositions, whereby the local electorate can trigger referendums? It is also silent on how those propositions are put together in terms of signatures and how the appropriate wording might appear on the ballot paper. Would not that require regulation in itself?

Mrs. Ellman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He makes an extremely important point. One of the deficiencies of the Bill is that, being simple and short, it does not deal with the complexities of the practical issues that are likely to arise.
The Bill's proposals on the role of the referendums commission ignore many fundamental issues. Should the same regulations and procedures apply for a referendum that is binding and for one that is simply advisory? Should the same recommendations and procedures apply for a referendum that could change national economic policy—for example, the decision to enter economic and monetary union—and one that expresses the view of a section of a local electorate about an issue on which a reversal of that referendum decision might be possible?
In other words, should a binding decision on electoral change, EMU or regional devolution equate to a referendum taking a view on a proposal about local car parking restrictions? They are fundamentally different issues, and the respective referendums must vary in force and importance. However, the Bill does not distinguish between those issues; indeed, it does not consider them at all.
There are other matters of concern relating to the Bill—matters of concern because of their omission. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) have each detailed those issues in their own way. The matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon are of great importance, and I refer hon. Members to them.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk drew attention to some very important issues, and in doing so highlighted the fact that the Bill does not reach any conclusions about them. They include matters to do with financial rules on the conduct of referendums and to do with the question of when a referendum campaign has begun. Has a referendum campaign on economic and monetary union started already?
The Bill does not ask questions about proper public access to information. It does not consider whether there should be free airtime for competing viewpoints, access to free public rooms or free mail—issues considered by the Neill committee.
The Bill does not consider the proper remit for the commission. It does not look at other related issues of importance, such as the idea of a rolling electoral register. It does not consider very important issues concerning the relationship between the referendum commission and the constitution unit of the Home Office, which is also involved in these matters.
Therefore, many crucial aspects are omitted from the scope of the Bill. The House should not be asked to approve a Bill of fundamental importance, relating to an area that will become increasingly important, until those issues have been considered. They are not simply issues of detail; they have, and will increasingly have, great significance.
All the matters that have been mentioned in the debate are of great importance and complexity, and require thought and consultation. That is why a Bill that has been described by its promoter as short and simple is inadequate to deal with those important and fundamental matters.
It would be far preferable for the Government to come up with a proposal and to allow widespread consultation on all those important issues. Pre-legislative scrutiny might be a consideration, but it is important that the House has the opportunity to consider documentation that sets out all those important issues, which touch the heart of our constitution, and that proper public consultation is undertaken on all those matters before a decision is taken.
We are considering issues of public importance—and growing importance. We are considering issues to do with the legitimacy of government and the credibility of the results that will emerge from, no doubt, a growing number of referendums. Those matters deserve deeper thought than the Bill permits. For that reason, the Bill is deficient and should not be allowed a Second Reading today.

Dr. Liam Fox: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on introducing this immensely important Bill, and doing so in a very stylish way. The Bill relates to an issue of fundamental importance to the way in which we are now governed, given the Government's appetite for referendums on many different issues, all of them in a pre-legislative form.
I was most interested to note that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) said that, since my hon. Friend had described his Bill as short and simple, it could not deal adequately with the complex issues raised in the debate. I remind the hon. Lady that "short" and "simple" are two of the three words that the Leader of the House has used to describe the Government's House of Lords reform Bill. Presumably, given that description, the hon. Member for Riverside believes—by her own logic—that the Government are dealing inadequately with the complexities of House of Lords reform in that Bill.

Mrs. Ellman: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the description given by the Leader of the House concerned the first phase of House of Lords reform? The proposal is indeed short and simple, but there is to be full consultation. A commission is sitting at this moment, considering the detailed complexities of what is to follow.

Dr. Fox: That is definitely a case of when the accused should opt for the right to silence.
This debate has been a test of the Government's democratic credentials. It has been a chance for them to prove that, as they have always said, they want a fair and equitable democratic system. We all know for our experience in this House exactly what is happening today. The Government have decided—it is in their power to do so—that this Bill should not be given a Second Reading. Labour Members have attempted to filibuster, although the quality has been fairly poor. It is a great pity that the Government have decided not to accept the fairly reasonable Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby.
This Bill is part of a wider debate. In this Parliament, we are experiencing a battle between democratic man and Executive man, in which Executive man is increasingly taking the upper hand. I am disappointed that some Labour Members have rolled over in the face of the Executive's desire. In doing so, they have not only failed to defend the rights of Parliament, but have allowed the Government to extend Executive power beyond both Houses of Parliament into areas such as how people can speak in a referendum. I find that an extremely disturbing trend.
Let us be clear about the intention behind the Bill: it is that referendums should be conducted fairly. The Bill asks for fairness in setting the question, so that the Government are not allowed to set a question that suits them. I can imagine the sort of objective question that the Prime Minister might set on economic and monetary union: "Well, I'm a great sort of guy, and if maybe I can come up with the right sort of solution at some point in the future, do you think maybe I should be given the chance to accept it if I think the timing is right?" We want a separate body to set a fair and objective question.
We want fairness in the timing of referendums, so that no one group is favoured. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) told us, in an answer that would have made Pravda proud, that the Welsh and Scottish referendums were staggered because there was a media deficit in Wales. Apparently, that does not apply to the elections for the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament—the Scots and the Welsh are apparently now quite capable of distinguishing which country they live in.
We want fairness in the funding of referendums. We believe that both sides of the argument should have reasonable access to funding, so that the disadvantage in the Welsh referendum, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) referred, does not recur. There should be fair access to the media. In this day and age, when the broadcast media matter so much, it is essential to the democratic process that both sides in a referendum campaign, just as in a general election, are given equal access and equal air time.

Judy Mallaber: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be a limit on the amount of money that either side can spend on a referendum campaign? Does he believe that such a limit should be in the Bill? I understand why he is supporting the Bill—I support its principles—but does he not agree that a Bill that covered other issues, such as funding, would be preferable?

Dr. Fox: Those are valid questions for consideration in Committee. Maximum levels of funding should be considered in Committee. We want an urgent response to

the problem that we face. The Government would have no problem if they allowed this Bill, with its limited provisions, a Second Reading, and then introduced a wider Bill to cover its functions. It would be entirely possible to repeal this Bill.
Why have Labour Members decided that they do not want this Bill to become law? They have done so because of the will of the Executive, not of Parliament. The Executive ask, "Why should we give anything away when we might be able to use it to our advantage?" That is the worst aspect of the way in which we are governed.
We must ask is why we need fairness. The overriding reason is that the legitimacy of any referendum result requires validity. In Wales the legitimacy was questioned because there was a 0.6 per cent. majority on only a 50 per cent. turnout. That occurred after the Government had used public money—by definition, from those who support both sides of the debate—for Government propaganda. The case put forward was not objective—it was the Government's case.
In this country, not only is no threshold set for a referendum to give it validity, but we have no numerical barriers in our Parliament to changes to our constitution. Results such as that in Wales can therefore lead to questions about validity. That is the wrong basis for making any form of constitutional change, and we should all be deeply worried about it.
What if we get a referendum on electoral reform, and what if that system is entirely dependent on a tiny proportion in a low turnout? What would be the validity of the result? That is why we require a referendums commission.
The Government have shown their fondness for pre-legislative referendums. There is a difference in legitimacy between the results of a pre-legislative referendum and a post-legislative referendum. In a pre-legislative referendum, the people have an idea of what principles they are voting for. In a post-legislative referendum, they know what legislation they are supporting. There can be a world of difference between the two.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) is no longer in his seat. His points were entirely based on the concept of legitimacy. As he raised the issue of the current fair British voting system, as against the gerrymandering proposed in other quarters, I would ask him to consider the proposition that a post-legislative referendum would be a far fairer basis for such plans.
Apart from the potential electoral reform referendum, there is concern about the way in which the Government are spending money on the so-called national changeover plan, which is actually the national handover plan, for economic and monetary union. We must make sure that a firm and equitable basis for conducting a referendum is in place before we ever conduct a referendum on electoral reform, and before we conduct a referendum on the most constitutionally important step this side of 1066—the economic and monetary union referendum.
We must have fair rules. The Bill would go some way to achieving that. The Minister will no doubt tell us not to worry, as the Government will put some measure in place. We will have draft legislation. We can have pre-legislative scrutiny. We will get a vague timetable, but we will be given no firm assurances.
If the Government's democratic credentials mean anything at all, the Minister will give us an assurance, with the authority of the Government and the specific authority of the Prime Minister, that no referendum on any constitutional change will be introduced in Parliament without a body having first been established to determine objectively the question, the timing, the funding and the media access to referendums in this country.
If the Minister can give us that assurance, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby has reasonably said that he will not press his Bill any further. If the Minister fails to give us such an assurance, he will boost our fear of the Government's motives. He will boost among the many cross-party groups that supported the Bill the suspicion that the Government are out to concoct a system that suits the Labour party's interests, not the national interest. That is what we have seen from them before, and what we suspect we will get in future.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: I am prepared to accept that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) tabled the Bill in an altruistic spirit. He seems to be good-humoured individual. I am prepared to accept that, although there is a battle raging within the ranks of the official Opposition on the role of Britain in Europe and on the single currency, the hon. Gentleman's main motive, if not that of his colleagues, in pursuing the Bill has nothing to do with the anti-European stance of many within his party, but has to do with a fundamental democratic issue, which all those who are interested in democracy and fair play should recognise—the need for a level playing field and a fair and open regulatory system for the conduct of referendums.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: rose—

Mr. Gareth Thomas: I give way to my hon. Friend. It is always a pleasure to give way to my namesake.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Does my hon. Friend think it a shame that the official Opposition spokesperson did not have the courage to take a few more interventions? Does he think also that it is a little rich for Conservative Members to be asking questions about our democratic credentials when they opposed any attempt to establish the equivalent of the Neill committee at a much earlier stage?

Mr. Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend raises a significant point with which, he will not be surprised to learn, I agree wholeheartedly.
As I have said, I am prepared to give the hon. Member for Blaby the benefit of the doubt. I agree with the valid points made by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). However, the Bill contains many defects and lacunae, and in my view should not receive a Second Reading. I recognise that the Bill addresses a fundamental issue. That being so, it should have been thought through in a fundamentally sound manner. There should be full consultation with the public and all interested groups. The Bill is premature and precipitate.

Much more work has to be done on it. The devil is in the detail, and I shall take up some of the detail of the Bill, or, rather, the lack of detail, which causes me concern.
I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). Although he was unfairly criticised by some Conservative Members, he did the House a favour in his comprehensive analysis of the problems and defects associated with the Bill. My hon. Friend mentioned that there is no upper limit on the spending that could be brought to bear by designated referendum campaigns. That is a fundamental defect. The right hon. Member for South Norfolk said that, in some way, such a limit would cut across the grain of the right to freedom of speech.
However, if the main motive behind the Bill is to ensure a competitive environment for a referendum campaign, an upper limit is essential in the interests of fair play.

Dr. Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend accept that we do not need to look into a crystal ball on this point? I have in mind what has happened over the years in America, particularly in the holding of local and state referendums. The proportional difference in spending between one side and the other, especially when business spending is involved, goes up to 200:1, despite whatever the state may do to apply fair funding and fair information between both sides.

Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend raises a fundamental point. Many Labour Members could be forgiven for thinking that the fact that there is no upper limit in the Bill gives the lie to the suggestion that it is an entirely altruistic measure designed to combat the perceived democratic deficit.

Mr. David Davis: I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument for an upper limit. However, everything that the hon. Gentleman has said so far suggests that he should be a member of the Committee that amends the Bill to fill the lacunae to which he has referred. His proposed alternative—that the Bill should not receive a Second Reading—does not follow on from what he has said.
What is the implication of delaying the passage of a referendum Bill through the House when one of the major referendums that this country will face—as my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said—will be on joining monetary union? The Government are already spending large sums on what the Neill report referred to as putatively factual information. How does the hon. Gentleman deal with that problem—the idea that delay will influence one of the most important referendums that is coming up?

Mr. Thomas: Although I agree with many of the principles of, and some of the concepts behind, the Bill, we must none the less take a detailed approach to the drafting of such legislation. My view is that the cumulative effect of the defects and the lacunae is that the Bill should not receive a Second Reading. Over and above that, if a fundamental measure of this sort is to be considered by the House, full consultation on all its details, and with all interested parties, is essential. That has to be undertaken before such legislation reaches the statute book. I hope that that answers the right hon. Gentleman's point.
May I deal with some other lacunae in the Bill? As I have said, there is no upper spending limit, and there is no definition of what constitutes a referendum, which is a startling omission. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said: that could cause all manner of difficulties. The Bill could be a charter for lawyers, because it raises innumerable questions about what constitutes a referendum. It would cause complications over the freedom that the Government may wish to give to local authorities to conduct ballots, to establish citizens' juries or to ask questions of local electorates on matters of concern within local communities.
The Bill contains no details of how the referendum commission would operate. In my view, it should have a far more wide-reaching brief than the Bill suggests. I would favour an electoral commission charged not only with ensuring fair play in the conduct of referendums but with raising public awareness and enhancing public participation in elections generally. I believe that the Government would support that proposal.
Another of the Bill's defects is the absence of a reference to what should be the permitted role of the Government. Much of the debate has turned on that important point, and my view is that the Government of the day have a responsibility to raise public awareness. Indeed, the Government should use public money to enhance public awareness on matters of constitutional importance, such as the Welsh and Scottish referendums. I shall discuss those referendums, as well as the European single currency, in a moment.
The case for using public money is all the greater if the printed press is inclined to give a one-sided view of a case. It is essential that the Government be allowed to put their case, but the Bill does not refer to what their role should be. I believe that their role should be defined. Many Conservative Members have said that it would be wrong for the Government of the day to enter the arena overmuch, and I accept that point. There should be some control over the manner in which the Government generate information; it should not be propaganda, but, on the other hand, the Government have the important duty of raising public awareness.
I agree that practical difficulties are associated with the operation of designated referendum campaigns, and problems could also be caused by the Bill's broadcasting provisions. As has been said, it could be strongly argued that the current regulatory framework for broadcasters covers the position sufficiently, without further legislation being required.
May I deal with the position in Wales? As a Welsh Member and someone who was actively involved in the Welsh referendum campaign, I have a particular interest in that matter. Although the result of the referendum for setting up the National Assembly for Wales was close, it was none the less a victory for the yes camp. The Government should be congratulated on moving forward speedily with legislation to set up a democratic tier of government in Wales. It is well overdue and is a recognition of the national status of Wales within the British unitary state.
The problem in Wales arose because of the nature of the topography and the fact that Wales does not have a national printed newspaper. Moreover, many people in Wales either cannot, or choose not to, receive television or radio signals from Welsh channels. That creates the

problem that I described in an earlier intervention. The hon. Member for Woodspring did not seem to accept my argument, perhaps because, with the greatest respect, he does not have sufficient knowledge of conditions in Wales. I advise him strongly to listen to some of his Welsh Assembly candidates, who will say that there is a media deficit in Wales. We do not have a national newspaper like the one that exists in Scotland. Right up until polling day for the Welsh referendum, many people did not understand that there was to be a referendum or what it would mean. In those circumstances, the Government had a duty to hold a public information campaign supported by public money—indeed, it would have been an abdication of their responsibility had they not done so.

Dr. Fox: Most of what the hon. Gentleman has said is nonsense, but surely he agrees that the logic of his argument is that both sides of the argument should have been presented to all the electors in Wales, rather than just one side, supported by public money.

Mr. Thomas: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman adopted a churlish tone in dismissing what I would like to think is an objective contribution to this valuable debate. Incidentally, I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby on raising this issue. The Government did not overstep the mark in Wales. The information that was delivered to each doorstep in Wales was objective. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Woodspring and I will have to agree to disagree. My view is that the Government had a role to play in Wales. Given the lack of public awareness of issues surrounding devolution, they had a duty to step in and fill the media deficit.
We can learn from the results of the referendum in Wales. In terms of the yes and no votes, there was not a north-south split, but an east-west split. The west of Wales, which one might regard as the Celtic fringe—it certainly covers the more Welsh areas of Wales in terms of language and place of birth of the majority of the inhabitants—recorded large majorities in favour of an assembly, whereas the east, including parts of my constituency, recorded an equally large number of votes against devolution.
One can read many things into that, as one can with all referendums, which is why many people believe that they can be an unsatisfactory and inaccurate way of gauging public opinion. Many people in Wales believed that the result of the referendum reflected the degree to which people felt an affinity with the Welsh culture and nation. It may not have had as much as it should have to do with the fine detail of the democratic argument in favour of—or for that matter against—an assembly. However, it was necessary for the Government to invest money in educating the public.
When we have a referendum on the European single currency, the Government will have a similar duty to provide dispassionate information to the general public on the merits and demerits of joining the single currency, if only to counteract what may transpire to be the xenophobia that will emanate from many sources, not least some elements of the press.

Mr. Robathan: I do not want to detain the hon. Gentleman, as I should like other hon. Members to have a chance to speak. He has twice said that the Government


have a duty to inform people, but he has also said that he will oppose the Bill. The Bill is about allowing people to make informed choices. Each side of the argument will be presented to everyone so that they can understand what it is that they are being asked to vote for. If only one side of the argument is given, how can anyone make an informed choice?

Mr. Thomas: I entirely agree with the principle that the public should hear both sides of the argument, delivered loud and clear. I should like there to be upper limits on spending so that fairness exists and so that the voice of parties to the arguments can be heard in equal proportion. However, there are fundamental problems with the Bill, and I cannot accept it.
Much has been made of the fact that the no campaign in Wales, which was poorly financed and resourced, achieved quite a degree of success. Most political parties in Wales—with the notable exception of the official Opposition—were in favour of the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales; it was an important commitment in the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru general election manifestos. My own view is that there ought not to have been referendums in either Scotland or Wales because devolution was clearly a fundamental principle at the heart of the general election campaign. There was a stark division in both Scotland and Wales between the Conservatives and Labour on that principle.
The role of broadcasters during the referendum campaign in Wales was problematic. Broadcasters must give a balanced view of both yes and no campaigns, but they must surely be entitled also to give weight to the strength of opinion. To create an artificial balance would be completely wrong-headed. All political parties in Wales—except the Conservatives—supported devolution. It was artificial to allow the no campaign so much coverage when it had little support outside certain areas. Points made this morning about the Bill's problematic broadcasting provisions have highlighted a fundamental defect in the Bill.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby on introducing an important Bill that deals with issues which the Government should comprehensively address. I hope that they will do so in the near future, because those issues go to the root of our democratic system. However, I cannot accept the Bill as it stands.

Mr. David Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand from the news that the hon. Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones) has been found guilty in the election expenses-rigging trial. Have you received any notification from the Government that there will be a by-election?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I have had no notification of a statement.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I, too, add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on producing this important Bill, which

is based on the well-researched Neill committee report and which had all-party support and should therefore be given a fair wind in the House—there is no excuse for not doing so.
In passing, I must inform the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) that hon. Members who are prepared to act as the Government's pooper-scoopers rarely come up smelling of roses when it comes to promotion. The hon. Gentleman illegitimately took up almost an hour of the House's time to pour out a lot of nonsense—he knew it was nonsense—in the hope of doing deals with his Front Bench.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) said, we could be forgiven for thinking that the Government do not intend to introduce any fairness into the system in time for the referendum that they have promised after the next general election, if they happen to win it. We will have a referendum if we win the election. The Government are deliberately delaying introducing that fairness because they do not want it for that referendum. As has been remarked, they are already pumping money into their side of the debate. That is why we are here this morning. We are trying to allow the people of this country to have a legitimate say in a matter that is of crucial importance to our future democracy and independence.
I had intended to raise two issues, but as one was partly dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—what I would have called the thresholds involved in a referendum and what he calls the legitimacy of outcome—I will move on to the second in the interests of brevity.
That issue is the scope of referendum, and we may deal with it in Committee. We need to define to some extent the issues that could legitimately qualify for Government support. As the hon. Member for Hendon remarked, ballots of parents concerning a school would clearly be outwith the scope of any legislation dealing with referendums, which should be held on matters of national importance—issues that should be the concern of every citizen at the time of the referendum.
The question of who is to be balloted in a referendum is another issue. I mention that because, in the recent past, there have been a number of referendums dealing with matters of fundamental importance to the whole population—the future of the legitimate structure of the United Kingdom—in which voting has been restricted to certain parts of the country. Had even all those of Scottish birth been given the right to vote in the Scottish referendum, we might have had a different outcome—and that will not have escaped the Government's attention. The point of that referendum was not to take note of public opinion but to achieve the political objective of the Government of the day.
The same was true in Wales where, as has been pointed out on a number of occasions, the turnout was extremely low—that is relevant to the question of the threshold that should be allowed. In the London referendum, the turnout was derisory. However, the Government now legitimately claim that they have a mandate to go ahead with a new form of administration and, again, they have a political motive. The Government know full well that the central part of our capital city sensibly returns Conservative councils such as Westminster—despite all the abuse and concoctions of the Labour party to discredit it—


and Kensington and Chelsea. Though we do not know this from elections, I suggest that the City of London would be Conservative. If we tack on Wandsworth, we have a core in the centre of London likely to remain predominantly Conservative. The Government's actions are designed to undermine that position.
That brings me to the electorate in referendums and the Government's intention to exclude certain parts of the country from the overall game plan. Most particularly, that means the people of England. They, too, have a legitimate case, under the Government's criteria, to be asked whether they want a government to handle domestic issues that affect people who live in England and no other—a government of the sort that the Scots, and, to a large extent, the Welsh, will have.

Mrs. Ellman: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gorman: I want to make progress. The hon. Lady has made her speech and others want to contribute.
I challenge the Government to say why people in England are not to be afforded the same courtesy and democratic right accorded to other parts of the United Kingdom. Several people who have written to me about this tell me that they also write to the Prime Minister, only to be told that there is no real interest in the issue. That is not a legitimate reason for excluding the people of England, because the referendums have presented them with an anomalous situation. Major domestic concerns such as health and education and welfare will be decided by separate Parliaments in Scotland and Wales, but Scottish and Welsh representatives will be free to vote on such issues as they affect the people of England. I hope that that will be at the forefront of deliberations in Committee.
The outcome of all this should fair to all citizens. So far, the Government's referendums have been anything but. They have been politically motivated and exclusive and do not qualify as legitimate consultation of the people. Polls are one thing, but matters likely to affect the construction of the United Kingdom are for general elections. The Government would say that they brought those things up in their manifesto and that they are therefore legitimate.
When the Government ballot the people of the United Kingdom through referendums on issues fundamental to all parts of the United Kingdom, the process should include all the peoples of the United Kingdom. We have gone past that stage for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but we can still accord the same fairness and courtesy to the people of England. If the Government are not prepared to do that, and continue to hold the people of England in contempt, there will be a repercussion. The people who represent the people of England in this Chamber will surely not stand by and continue to allow those who are not elected as English Members to the Westminster Parliament to determine matters of fundamental importance to the people of England. I hope that fairness and legitimacy will be to the fore in the Committee's discussions.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: As other hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, fair rules on referendums and elections are clearly an important

issue. However, Opposition Members should be extremely wary of using words such as "democracy" and "fairness". My constituents remember only too well that the Conservative party refused to extend the remit of the Nolan committee to consider political party funding.
I am slightly surprised to see so many members of the Conservative party supporting a referendums commission in the light of the evidence that Lord Parkinson gave on its behalf to the Home Affairs Select Committee. The Committee noted that he was not convinced that an electoral commission was necessary or, indeed, that it would be desirable. It seems a remarkable volte-face, so soon after he gave that evidence, that so many Conservative Members should now support the Bill.
I fear that the Bill was born of the Conservative party's hysteria on all matters to do with the euro and their opposition to any future sensible attempts to modernise our electoral system. It is a badly drafted Bill that raises more questions than it answers. Therefore, I will not support it or urge the Government to support prolonging its life. Nevertheless, I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on securing such a high slot in the private Member's ballot and on the way, albeit misguided, in which he set out his case.
The background to the Bill lies in our party's decision to extend the remit of the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life. One of the most important recommendations made by the Neill committee was for the establishment of an elections commission. Recommendation 93 of its fifth report states that one function of such a commission should be to keep referendums and referendum campaigns under review, and that reports should be made to the Government and to Parliament about them.
In the debates on 9 November on the Neill committee's fifth report, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary clearly stated his intention
to produce a draft Bill before the next summer recess and to bring forward legislation so that new rules can be in place for the next general election."—[Official Report, 9 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 53.]
The hon. Member for Blaby said in answer to my intervention that an elections commission would take over the role of a referendums commission. In the light of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's assurance, a referendums commission is entirely unnecessary, since legislation to establish a much more crucial elections commission, with a role in referendums but with even more fundamental responsibilities, will come before the House.
In the concluding part of his speech on 9 November, the shadow Home Secretary said, or at least claimed, that he wanted to see legislation
that covers all the report's proposals, for referendums as well as elections."—[Official Report, 9 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 66.]
Yet here is the Conservative parliamentary party turning out in force to support a proposal that is not in the Neill report—indeed, much of it flies in the face of what he recommended—and does not cover the bigger picture of elections.
Clauses 2 and 3 relate to the need for equal access to core funding to enable at least minimal campaigns to be mounted by designated pro and anti campaigns. Yet, in paragraph 12.35 of the fifth report, the committee states unequivocally:
We believe that the new Election Commission should be the body both to receive applications for core funding from organisations intending to campaign in any referendum and to decide which of the organisations should be in receipt of the core funding.
The report mentions an elections commission, not a referendums commission.
The question in my mind is why the hon. Member for Blaby, backed by so many of his hon. Friends, is proposing a referendums commission and not an elections commission. I suspect that the Conservative party fears an elections commission. It fears the honesty, transparency and integrity that a commission would demand of all political parties. The Conservative party was most reluctant to see lasting reform of party funding. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), consistently opposed extending the remit of the Nolan committee to party funding.
What is particularly astonishing about the Bill is the absence of a broader regime of controls recommended by the Neill report, which, over a defined period, would require the registration of any campaigning group or individual intending to incur expenditure of more than £25,000.
The Bill contains no requirement to report donations of more than £5,000 to campaigning individuals or groups. Where is any restriction on the source of donations to campaigning organisations? Specifically, why does the Bill not at least ban foreign donations? The omission of such controls has an echo in the Conservative party's reluctance to accept tighter controls on, and tighter scrutiny of, election spending. Who could forget the extent to which the Conservative party was reliant on foreign donors at the last election? There was the £1 million gift from a Hong Kong businessman, and £1.5 million from a Greek shipping owner, not to mention the Asil Nadir debacle. At the time, the Conservative party was desperate for money—any money—to try to buy election success or, more realistically, to minimise—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a bit wide of the Bill.

Mr. Thomas: Thank you for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Dismore: Perhaps I can help out my hon. Friend by reminding him of the suggestion that Paul Sykes might make a contribution of up to £20 million to a no campaign in the European referendum. Does that help to illustrate my hon. Friend's point?

Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I was asking why the Bill contains no ban on foreign sources of funding for referendum campaigns. Is it because, as I suspect, the hon. Member for Blaby and his right hon. and hon. Friends want to ensure that a treasure

chest can be built up to buy advantage at any price in a referendum on entry to the euro, or to fight any form of sensible electoral reform?
The omission of references to the need for disclosure of the sources of funding, which was recommended by Neill not only for elections but for referendums, reminds me of the improper close relationship that existed between those who funded the Conservative party and those who held power in it, as described in Lord McAlpine's biography. Any referendum campaign must avoid such stigma, or even the hint of it, especially as the campaigns in the possible referendums on entry to the single currency and on electoral reform would inevitably be fronted by high-profile political or business figures. Without rules on disclosure and the source of donations, and thus without transparency and accountability, there will always be concern about the nature of the relationship between funders and funded in a referendum campaign.
The hon. Gentleman made much of the need for broadcast media to give equal access to both sides in a referendum campaign. I do not see what his Bill adds to existing legislative requirements, as broadcasters are already required to be impartial in their coverage of matters of political controversy. Another example of bad drafting is the absence from the Bill of a requirement for the commission to account for the expenses it incurs. Neither is it clear, either from the Bill or from the speeches in support of it, how the establishment of a permanent body dealing solely with referendums can be reconciled with the fact that referendums are, by definition, infrequent.
There is one other major omission from the Bill, which is any limit on the spending allowed during a referendum. The Neill report's recommendations that there should not be curbs on referendum expenditure are fundamentally flawed. The committee advanced two arguments for allowing any amount of spending. First, it argued that referendum campaigns are often fought by people and organisations who have never worked together, or who might not work together even during the campaign, and that it would thus be impractical to try to control campaign spending. I recognise the additional complexity that referendum campaigns bring, but I do not accept that control is impossible. The issue is one that an elections commission should explore in more detail.
The second argument against control over spending advanced by the Neill committee is that it would result in some sort of unwarranted restriction of freedom of speech, because the reasons for voting yes or no might be large in number, disparate, and even contradictory. The same conflicts exist during election campaigns, with the number of such conflicts reflecting the number of parties contesting the election. Therefore, if there should be constraints on spending during election campaigns, there should also be limits on spending during referendum campaigns.
I am extremely suspicious of the motives of Conservative Members who back the Bill. The Bill selectively picks out recommendations from the Neill committee report, it does not address key criticisms of the report and it completely ignores the need for more wide-ranging reform of our election system. That wide-ranging reform is necessary, in part to clean up and guarantee as far as is possible a continuing clean relationship between the Conservative party and its funders.
I think that this Bill is really about trying to secure an advantage for the Conservatives' position in a referendum campaign on the euro. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that he has been rumbled, that he will withdraw his Bill immediately and engage instead in a more mature and genuine debate about the rules governing both electoral and referendum campaigns when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary publishes draft legislation this summer.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I join other hon. Members who have congratulated the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) not only on his success in the ballot, but on raising this important issue. It has given the House a welcome opportunity to debate several important points regarding the conduct of referendums. I also thank the hon. Gentleman for the good-humoured way—for the most part—in which he introduced his Bill and for his courteous comments about me.
As many hon. Members have said, the case for a generic referendums Bill is clearly stronger now than it was 10 years ago. As several hon. Members recounted, since 1973 eight referendums have been held either throughout the United Kingdom or, more commonly, in a particular part of the country. Some might find it surprising, given the subsequent history of referendums, that it was a Conservative Government who conducted our first referendum in 1973 on whether Northern Ireland should continue to remain part of the United Kingdom.
That was followed by three referendums under the last Labour Government. The first of those, in June 1975, was on the United Kingdom's continued membership of the European Community. It remains, to date, the only occasion on which a referendum has been held throughout the country. It is worth recording that the Neill committee saw the legal and administrative arrangements for the 1975 referendum as a model for future nationwide polls. There followed, in 1979, separate referendums in Scotland and Wales on whether the devolution legislation, enacted the previous year, should be put into effect.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) pointed out, the conduct of referendums fell into disuse during the 18 years of the previous Conservative Administration. However, the Labour Government were elected with a commitment to making some sweeping changes to this country's constitution, and we believe that key parts of that programme of constitutional change should be underpinned by the explicit consent of the people affected. To this end, we have already held four referendums. The first two, in 1997, sought the endorsement—which we received—of our proposals for devolved government in Scotland and Wales. They were followed, in 1998, by referendums in London and on the establishment of the Greater London authority and in Northern Ireland on the acceptability of the Good Friday agreement respectively.
However, as most speakers have conceded, the use of referendums will probably not stop there. Our manifesto contains a number of further commitments to hold referendums at an appropriate time. Last month, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when launching the national changeover plan, reiterated our commitment to hold a referendum on membership of the single currency

after a Government decision to join. In addition to the euro, we have also said that we will hold a referendum before changing the voting system for elections to this House and before introducing directly elected regional government in England. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) referred to England as one region or nation. As she well knows, the Government have no plans to introduce an English Parliament, although any demand for some sort of regional government will be pursued via a referendum in the area concerned.
Our commitment to referendums to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of our new constitutional settlement is not confined to changes at national and regional levels. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced in the Government's White Paper on modernising local government that local people should decide, in a referendum, whether they supported the creation of a directly elected mayor.
The White Paper also signalled the Government's support for the use of referendums as an important tool to give local people more say in such issues as major local developments or matters of particular local controversy. Several hon. Members have referred to that important and welcome development.

Mr. Letwin: Does the Minister recall the words of the Prime Minister, who stated:
I want to renew faith in politics through a government that will … play by the rules"?
Will he now give a categorical assurance that his Government will not hold any more referendums beyond those that he has already described without implementing rules to give effect to those words?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) asked specific questions to that effect and I shall answer those in due course, so if the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) exercises a little patience, I will come to that point.
It is clear from the agenda for modernising the political structures of our country that referendums will continue to play an important part in our political life. That was recognised by the Neill committee's report on the funding of political parties and the Electoral Reform Society's commission on the conduct of referendums, which reported in 1996 under the chairmanship of Sir Patrick Nairne. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Member for Blaby referred to the work done by Sir Patrick Nairne and those who sat on his commission.
Until now, the practice has been to organise referendums case by case. In seven out of the eight referendums that have so far been held, statutory authority for the poll was derived from dedicated primary legislation. In the eighth case—the 1998 Northern Ireland poll—the statutory authority was derived from an order made under the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996.
It is clear from a quick reading of the various referendum Acts that there is now a reasonably well-established set of statutory provisions that are needed to provide for a referendum to be held. Typically, legislation for holding referendums has defined persons eligible to vote. The hon. Member for Billericay implied that anybody who has Scottish ancestry should have had


a vote in the Scottish referendum, even if they did not live in Scotland. We do not agree, but it is important, as she suggested, to define who is eligible and who is not. The legislation usually needs also to specify the question.

Mrs. Gorman: My point was that the entire population should be considered suitable to express a view on an issue that concerns the whole nation. I was referring not only to people of Scottish ancestry, but the population of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Howarth: I am sorry—I had misunderstood the hon. Lady.
The legislation must also determine the date of the referendum, provide for the appointment of a chief counting officer with responsibility for counting the votes and announcing the result and provide powers to adapt existing electoral machinery as necessary.
In addition, the Referendum Act 1975 provided for grants to be made towards the cost of campaigning. That subject has been well ventilated during the debate, it is dealt with in the Bill, and I shall return to it later. The Neill committee's recommendations consider other issues, such as the registration of campaign organisations, to which I shall also return in due course.
If, as appears to be the case, referendums are to become a permanent feature of our political life, there is certainly an argument for setting up standing machinery for their conduct. We have such machinery for elections, so why not for referendums? There is a good deal of force in that argument, but, on the other hand, the process of selecting items for inclusion in a generic referendums Bill is, as the debate has demonstrated, by no means straightforward.

Mr. Cash: The Minister may recall the rather controversial Referendum Bill that I introduced in 1996, which caused something of a furore, and my Maastricht referendum campaign, which attracted 350,000 signatures, in 1993. That campaign was chaired by me, a Liberal Democrat and a Labour Member. At the heart of our debate is not simply the question of the generics of the Bill, but the extent to which the people may be misled if broadcasting is not accurate and impartial. Will the Minister be good enough to tell me whether the Government's Bill, like this Bill, will include specific and legally accurate provisions to ensure due impartiality on the part of Eurorealists and Europhiles? This is not a party political issue.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman mentions fairness in broadcasting. If he will bear with me, I shall cover that point later.
I have already outlined the type of provisions that have typically featured in dedicated referendum Acts. We need to pause before throwing all the individual ingredients into a generic referendums Bill. One approach might be to create a broad order-making power enabling a referendum to be called on any issue. The effect of that, however, would be to restrict Parliament's ability to debate the merits of holding a referendum on any particular issue, the wording of the question and the timing of the poll. There is a strong argument for saying that, on matters of national constitutional significance,

there should be a full opportunity for Parliament to give its consent to each and every referendum, and that Parliament should set the question.
If we put to one side the question and the timing of any given referendum, we are left with the nuts and bolts of referendums. As the Neill committee recognised, however, these are still matters of great importance. Like justice, referendums must be conducted, and be seen to be conducted, fairly—I think that the hon. Member for Blaby made the same point in slightly different words. A generic referendums Bill could establish clear ground rules to ensure that that is so.
The Bill properly focuses on two ground rules—core public funding and equal access to the broadcast media—but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will concede that there are others. If we are to have ground rules, as I believe that we must, perhaps the first question to ask is, who or what sort of body is to police them? The Bill provides for the establishment of a referendums commission, as recommended by, I think, the Nairne commission—I believe that the hon. Gentleman conceded that his proposal was taken from that model—and as supported by the Jenkins commission on the voting system. The hon. Gentleman has sensibly been open in recognising that his referendums commission is intended only as an interim arrangement until a more suitable body is established under subsequent legislation.
During the debate on the Neill committee's report on 9 November last year, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that the Government had accepted the case for the establishment of an electoral commission. As my right hon. Friend said in that debate, we are considering the precise role and remit of the electoral commission.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said, it is clear that we do not want a plethora of bodies responsible for different aspects of elections, as well as referendums. If Parliament determines that a body of this kind should have functions in relation to referendums, it would make every sense to confer those functions on the electoral commission. Precisely what that entails remains at this stage a matter for more detailed consideration, but there must be some doubt about the wisdom of setting up a separate referendums commission at a time when the Government have accepted the need for an electoral commission, and there are no new referendums on the immediate horizon. I shall return to that point. It is perfectly possible that a body established in this way would never have any role before being superseded by the electoral commission.
The Government will want to use the next few months—

Mr. Damian Green: rose—

Mr. Howarth: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I must then make progress.

Mr. Green: Will the Minister confirm that he is telling the House that there will be no referendums between now and the next general election, including one on the electoral system?

Mr. Howarth: I have told the hon. Member for West Dorset that I intend to answer that question shortly so, if the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) will bear with me, I shall return to it.
During the next few months, we want to consider carefully how the electoral commission should be structured. I chair a working party on electorate procedures, on which the Conservative party and Liberal Democrat party are represented. Yesterday, we had a detailed and useful discussion on what the functions of an electoral commission should be, and what enabled us to discover variations in our thinking. We are not just treading water; something is happening. Discussions are taking place, and this debate is part of that discussion. The proceedings of that working party, on which both the opposition parties are represented, are also part of the consideration.
As the Neill committee said, the commission should be independent of Government and, as far as possible, the arrangements for making appointments to the commission and for setting its budget should reflect its independent status. On the appointments side, the hon. Member for Blaby has built in a role for the Speaker. That is one approach, and I would not rule out a role for the Speaker in connection with the electoral commission, but I would not in any way take the role or consent of the Speaker for granted at this stage of our debate.
The Bill is less forthcoming on the arrangements for setting the referendums commission's budget. There is the usual provision for money to be provided by Parliament to meet the commission's expenses, but the implication is that the commission's budget should be part of a departmental vote. The Neill committee pointed out that the mechanism for setting the budget of the National Audit Office provides a useful precedent, and it is one that we want to examine further.
I am sure that the House will agree that it is important to get the structure of the supervisory body right and to consider carefully the functions that it will need. The Nairne commission helpfully identified several possible functions—advising on the wording of the question; allocating funding to campaign groups; liaising with, and acting as a moderator between, any campaign groups; acting in an ombudsman role to deal with any complaints; monitoring balanced access to broadcast media; providing public information, including a balanced statement of the opposing arguments; and supervising the organisation of polling stations and counting and declaration arrangements. The commission also suggested that a continuing role might be to identify lessons from each referendum and to recommend any necessary changes in procedure for future referendums.
That is an impressive list, which requires detailed analysis. The promoter and sponsors of the Bill have obviously concluded that their referendums commission should have a more limited remit. On my reading of the Bill, the proposed commission's functions would be limited to advising and reporting on referendums in general; advising on the wording of the question; designating a referendum campaign body for each possible outcome; making grants to such designated campaign bodies; and reporting on the conduct of each referendum.
There may be a closer affinity between the functions that I have just listed and the functions recommended by the Neill committee, but even the list that I just enumerated is no small undertaking. We need to be sure that the functions conferred on any oversight body are appropriate. For example, should a referendums commission have a role in relation to all national, regional

and local referendums? My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) drew attention to some of the difficulties that might arise in that regard.
Clause 4 requires the referendums commission to
make a report to the Secretary of State on the conduct of any referendum conducted under any enactment".
As I read the Bill, that could include local referendums.
I have mentioned the Deputy Prime Minister's plans for local consultative referendums on such issues as major local developments and matters of local controversy. Those consultative referendums would be in addition to the binding referendums on whether there should be a directly elected mayor. The proposals in the Bill create potential for hundreds of local referendums to be conducted throughout the country every year. If the referendums commission was expected to report on every local referendum, it would need very many staff.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Blaby would agree that a balance must be achieved. We do not yet have a ready answer to that problem, but my instinct is that the Bill has not quite achieved a balance, although I accept that that is not as a result of prejudice on the hon. Gentleman's part, but simply reflects the complexity of the issues involved.
Clause 2 would provide for the designation, by the referendums commission, of referendum campaign organisations. The clause seeks to implement recommendation 85 of the Neill report, which provided that
the Election Commission should decide which organisations, if any, should be in receipt of core funding".
There is, however, a key difference between what the clause provides for and the substance of the recommendation. The Neill committee acknowledged that identifying one organisation on either side of a referendum campaign which stood out from all other such organisations may not always be straightforward.
In 1975, the position was clear. The Government issued a White Paper, which advised:
The Government are prepared to consider providing limited financial assistance, to be equally divided between the two sides, if it is possible to identify two organisations which adequately represent those campaigning for and against continued membership of the Community.
Events moved rapidly, to such an extent that, when the Referendum Bill was published on 26 March 1975, it provided for grants to be made to two named organisations: Britain in Europe and the National Referendum Campaign. It must be remembered that, at that time, the political landscape was in many ways not as complicated or crowded as it is today.
Other more recent referendum campaigns have spawned their own umbrella cross-party groups. Although such umbrella groups have emerged more often than not, the Neill committee pointed to the no campaign in Scotland in 1997 and the yes campaign in Northern Ireland in 1998, where such groups were not an obvious feature of the campaign.
Clause 2(2) requires the referendums commission to certify one organisation on each side
as the designated referendum campaign".
As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley pointed out, such a provision could place the commission in a very difficult, if not impossible, position. As the Neill committee sensibly recommended, it would be unwise to box the commission into such a corner.
Another potential difficulty for the electoral commission is that the Bill refers to
each of the possible outcomes
in a referendum. In most cases, as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) suggested, the possible outcomes are clear because electors are asked to vote either yes or no to a single question, or for one of two opposing propositions. The 1997 Scottish devolution referendum does not, however, fit neatly into this framework.
The House will recall that, in 1997, the Scottish people were presented with a two-part ballot paper. Voters were asked, first, to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed that there should be a Scottish Parliament, and secondly, whether they agreed or disagreed that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers. In theory, therefore, there were four possible outcomes: yes to a Scottish Parliament and yes to giving it tax-varying powers; no to both; yes to a Scottish Parliament, but no to giving it tax-varying powers; and no to a Scottish Parliament, but yes to giving it tax-varying powers.

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman please answer this question: is he suggesting that, under the Bill, there could be two questions in a referendum—one asking people whether they wanted a single currency, and the other asking people whether they wanted to be part of the European Union? If that is what the Government have in mind, they are following a very dangerous path.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that was not what I meant. I was merely referring to the fact that, in different campaigns and referendums, there could be more complicated sets of questions.
In practice, in the Scottish devolution referendum, campaigners fought for either a yes or a no vote to both propositions. None the less, given four possible outcomes, the referendums commission would be obliged under the Bill to designate four referendum campaign organisations, and pay each of them a grant in order that a campaign may be conducted. That example, and others that we have heard, demonstrate the difficulty of setting up a framework that covers all possible future circumstances. Despite the difficulties, we should not be put off trying to find a workable solution. All credit is due to the hon. Member for Blaby for introducing the Bill so that we can begin to discuss the issues.
Once we get over the problem of identifying the lead campaign body on each side of the referendum, there is the question of core funding, which several hon. Members raised. Clause 3(1) provides for grants to be made to the designated referendum campaigns and stipulates, in paragraph (b), that the same amount must be given to each side. It is worth spending a little time examining that proposition.
Recommendation 84 of the Neill report did indeed propose that
each side should be given equal access to an amount of core funding".
From the preceding paragraphs in the report, it is clear that the concern was that each side should have sufficient

funds to enable it to mount a minimum campaign. By "sufficient funds", the Neill Committee meant sufficient
to cover minimal office accommodation, the purchase or rental of a quantity of office equipment and supplies, and the salaries of three or four members of staff for the duration of the campaign".
In making that recommendation, as the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) accepted, the Neill Committee pointed to the precedent of the 1975 referendum. Section 3 of the Referendum Act 1975 provided for a grant not exceeding £125,000 to be made to the two main campaign organisations.
The official accounts of Britain in Europe and the National Referendum Campaign were published in October 1975 (Cmnd. 6215). As an historical insight into the politics of the 1970s, that document makes interesting reading. As well as the audited receipts and payments accounts, the document lists all the individual donations of £100 or more received by the two campaigns.
The list for Britain in Europe—the yes campaign—includes the names of 369 individuals and organisations who together donated nearly £1 million. The list reads like a "Who's Who" of British industry and commerce, including as it does such companies as ICI, Marks and Spencer, Shell UK and the Rank Organisation. The list of donors to the National Referendum Campaign—the no campaign—makes rather more poignant reading. There were just seven individuals or organisations identified as having given more than £100.
The key fact that the accounts reveal is that the Government grant to the Britain in Europe campaign represented only 8 per cent. of its total income, whereas the grant to the National Referendum Campaign represented a massive 94 per cent. of its total income. In a typically thoughtful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) alluded to that problem, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas).
If the purpose of core funding is to ensure that each side has sufficient funds to run at least a minimal campaign, it is arguable whether it was strictly necessary in 1975 to award funding to the Britain in Europe campaign at all. I am not making the case one way or the other, but simply posing the question whether the requirement to be fair to each side overrides all other considerations.

Dr. Fox: The Minister has been speaking for 29 minutes. He has three times said that he would answer a straight question. Will or will not the Government give a commitment that they will not introduce proposals for a referendum in this country until fair rules are established, under this Bill or subsequent legislation?

Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I intend to cover that in my speech. If he will exercise a little patience, I shall deal with the matter—there is plenty of time.
The question is whether, in the circumstances that I described, it was necessary to give a commitment to funding for both sides. Where core funding is available, it seems sensible not to spread it too thinly across a number of campaigning groups. The Neill committee's approach, which the Bill adopts, was to allocate the funding to only one organisation on each side of the referendum. However, we should not lose sight of the fact


that there may be many other organisations, in addition to the lead umbrella groups, that are campaigning in the referendum.

Mr. Robathan: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 5.

Division No. 121]
[2 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Amess, David



Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Key, Robert


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Baker, Norman
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Baldry, Tony
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Lansley, Andrew


Bercow, John
Letwin, Oliver


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Body, Sir Richard
Lidington, David


Boswell, Tim
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Loughton, Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Luff, Peter


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Browning, Mrs Angela
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Burns, Simon
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Butterfill, John
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Cash, William
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Madel, Sir David



Malins, Humfrey


Chope, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Clappison, James
May, Mrs Theresa


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Moss, Malcolm


Collins, Tim
Nicholls, Patrick


Colvin, Michael
Norman, Archie


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Ottaway, Richard


Cran, James
Page, Richard


Curry, Rt Hon David
Paice, James


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Paterson, Owen



Pickles, Eric


Day, Stephen
Prior, David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Randall, John


Duncan, Alan
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Evans, Nigel
Robathan, Andrew


Faber, David
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fallon, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Flight, Howard
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
St Aubyn, Nick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Soames, Nicholas


Fox, Dr Liam
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Fraser, Christopher
Spicer, Sir Michael


Garnier, Edward
Spring, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Steen, Anthony


Gill, Christopher
Streeter, Gary


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Swayne, Desmond


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Syms, Robert


Gray, James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Green, Damian
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Greenway, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hammond, Philip
Townend, John


Hawkins, Nick
Tredinnick, David


Hayes, John
Trend, Michael


Heald, Oliver
Tyrie, Andrew


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Walter, Robert


Horam, John
Wardle, Charles


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Wells, Bowen


Hunter, Andrew
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Jenkin, Bernard
Whittingdale, John





Wilkinson, John
Yeo, Tim


Willetts, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilshire, David



Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Mr. Edward Leigh and Mr. Dominic Grieve.


Woodward, Shaun





NOES


Dismore, Andrew
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Tellers for the Noes:


Hill, Keith
Ms Bridget Prentice and Mr. Gareth R. Thomas.


Sedgemore, Brian

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House Divided:Ayes 128, Noes 0.

Division No. 122]
[2.11 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hammond, Philip


Amess, David
Hawkins, Nick


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hayes, John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Heald, Oliver


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Baker, Norman
Horam, John


Baldry, Tony
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hunter, Andrew


Bercow, John
Jenkin, Bernard


Beresford, Sir Paul
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Body, Sir Richard



Boswell, Tim
Key, Robert


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lansley, Andrew


Burns, Simon
Letwin, Oliver


Butterfill, John
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Cash, William
Lidington, David


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter



Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Chope, Christopher
Loughton, Tim


Clappison, James
Luff, Peter


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Collins, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Colvin, Michael
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Cran, James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Curry, Rt Hon David
Madel, Sir David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Malins, Humfrey



Mates, Michael


Day, Stephen
May, Mrs Theresa


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Moss, Malcolm


Duncan, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Evans, Nigel
Norman, Archie


Faber, David
Ottaway, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Page, Richard


Flight, Howard
Paice, James


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Paterson, Owen


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Pickles, Eric


Fox, Dr Liam
Prior, David


Fraser, Christopher
Randall, John


Garnier, Edward
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gibb, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Gill, Christopher
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gray, James
St Aubyn, Nick


Green, Damian
Soames, Nicholas


Greenway, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Spicer, Sir Michael






Spring, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Steen, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Streeter, Gary
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Swayne, Desmond
Whittingdale, John


Syms, Robert
Wilkinson, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Willetts, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Townend, John
Woodward, Shaun


Tredinnick, David
Yeo, Tim


Trend, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tyrie, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walter, Robert
Mr. Dominic Grieve and Mr. Edward Leigh.


Wardle, Charles





NOES


Tellers for the Noes:


Mr. Gerald Howarth and Mr. David Maclean.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63(1) (Committal of Bills).

Cheques (Scotland) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. John Swinney: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have pleasure in introducing this Bill to the House for its Second Reading. It tackles an historical anomaly created by the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, through the applications of the funds-attached principle, which affects the customers of Scottish banks.
I thank the Committee of Scottish Clearing Bankers for its assistance in the preparation of the Bill and for raising this important issue in the banking sector. I also thank the Economic Secretary and her officials, who have assisted in the preparation of the Bill.
The funds-attached principle means that a cheque operates as an assignation of the sum for which it is drawn in favour of the owner of the cheque. If there are insufficient funds to meet a cheque when it is presented, whatever sums are available are attached and suspended, to be passed over eventually to the owner of the cheque, should he or she fail to get full value for it by other means. That is a cumbersome administrative procedure. The banks estimate that it involves the operation of 100,000 accounts in any year and that the measure would save the Scottish clearing banks approximately £250,000 a year in administrative costs.
The operation of that principle was considered by the Review Committee on Banking Services Law, chaired by Professor Jack under the previous Government, who accepted the recommendations of the Jack committee subject to consultation. That consultation indicated that there was support for the measure.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Swinney: No, I am short of time.
The Jack committee's recommendations were that the principle be abolished so that administrative savings and administrative convenience could be assisted within the banking sector. The Bill has the support of the four Scottish clearing banks and I hope that it will command the support of the House.

Mr. Eric Forth: The hon. Gentleman scarcely did justice to the Bill, which has implications that go beyond the rather narrow definition that he gave, although I understand why, at a time such as this, he did that. I wanted to ask him several questions, but he was not prepared to answer them, so I will have to go into them in a little detail. That is the way these things happen.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: It will be taken unkindly in Scotland if the right hon. Gentleman obstructs the passage of the Bill by speaking at great length when it enjoys such widespread support.

Mr. Forth: At 2.25 pm, I leave the right hon. Gentleman to consider what great length might be.


Perhaps we could discuss it another time. If he is suggesting that the people of Scotland expect legislation to go through without proper scrutiny, it reflects badly on them if not on him. I hope that he is not.

Mr. David Maclean: The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) spoke for more than an hour on the Referendums Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We are not going to discuss what happened in a previous debate. We must keep to the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
One of the issues properly raised by the Bill is whether this is a matter for the House of Commons and the Westminster procedure.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the previous Government, following the recommendations of the Jack committee, and the subsequent favourable consultation, were minded to introduce the measure but unfortunately did not have the time? Will he therefore support the Bill?

Mr. Forth: It appears that this Government cannot find the time either. It appears that the measure is so important that neither Government could find time for it.

Mr. Nick Gibb: To put the record straight, the Opposition support this eminently sensible Bill. The funds attached rule is absurd. I hope that the Bill progresses this afternoon.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I assume that, in the best traditions of the House, he will wish to explain at greater length why he and his colleagues favour the Bill. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, agree that it is an essential part of the legislative process, that any measure however small or narrow, must be properly

considered in the House of Commons. All views must be heard, both those of Front Benchers and those of Back Benchers. I welcome the opportunity that my hon. Friend will no doubt seek to set out his position in some detail. He might then answer the question to which the Minister's comments give rise—namely, why the previous Government failed to find time for the measure when they are alleged to have supported it. The same seems to apply to this Government. However excellent they may say they find the measure, they have not yet found time for it in their programme. We are therefore here today, following the private Members' procedure, rightly considering the principle of the Bill on Second Reading.

Mr. Maclean: Does not my right hon. Friend find outrageous the suggestion that, as we have had a two-minute speech by the Bill's promoter and declarations in favour, although no speeches, from the Front-Bench spokesmen, the Bill must be bounced through without discussion?

Mr. Forth: I agree with my right hon. Friend. It would be very much in tune with the contempt in which the Government normally hold the House for them to expect a measure such as this to be shoved through without proper debate.

Ms Bridget Prentice: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the irony of two Scottish Conservative Members opposing a measure that will benefit Scots and Scotland? Admittedly, like me, they represent English seats.

Mr. Forth: That brings me to the first question of substance. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for leading me in the direction that I wanted to follow. She has rightly pointed out that there is an irony in the fact that it is this House, with Members such as me considering this measure at this stage—the hon. Lady might, if she were to catch—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 14 May.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

FUEL POVERTY AND ENERGY CONSERVATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.

TRANSPORT OF FARM ANIMALS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

CONTROL OF RESIDENTIAL HEDGEROWS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.

BUS FUEL DUTY (EXEMPTIONS) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [12 March], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 16 April.

STREETWORKS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 April.

NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 March.

COMPUTER MILLENNIUM NON-COMPLIANCE (CONTINGENCY PLANS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 March.

PUBLIC HOUSE NAMES BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 March.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [12 March], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 26 March.

ENERGY CONSERVATION (HOUSING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 March.

DEREGULATION COMMITTEE

Ordered,

That Mr. Stephen McCabe be discharged from the Deregulation Committee and Mr. John McDonnell be added to the Committee.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

TRAVEL BY MEMBERS TO NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS AND EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Resolution of 6th December 1991 relating to travel by Members to European Community Institutions be rescinded.

That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made as from 1st April 1999 for reimbursing Members in respect of the cost of travelling on parliamentary duties between the United Kingdom and any European Union institution in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg or the national parliament of another European Union member state and any additional expenses necessarily incurred in such travelling, subject to the limit that

(1) the amount payable to a Member in any year, beginning with 1st April, shall not exceed the aggregate of—

(a) the cost of a return business class airfare for the journey on the assumption that the journey begins and ends at a London airport and that the destination is any of the three cities mentioned above or the location of the national parliament of a European Union member state; and
(b) twice the corresponding civil service class A standard subsistence rate for the time being in operation; and
(2) expenditure in pursuance of this Resolution within financial year 1999–2000 shall not exceed the total currently planned for expenditure on travel by Members to European Union institutions within that year.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Hon. Members: Object.

OFFICE COSTS ETC. ALLOWANCES

Resolved,

That, in the opinion of this House, the following provisions should have effect:

The limit on the office costs allowance in relation to Mrs. Betty Williams should be up to 1.25 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (a) of the Resolution of the House of 10th July 1996 for any quarter beginning with 1st April 1998.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Tibet

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Mr. Norman Baker: I am grateful for the opportunity to make progress with my Adjournment debate, and that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will not be able to prevent me from doing so in the next half hour.
Wednesday 10 March was the 40th anniversary of the uprising in Lhasa, when the Chinese finally made clear their intention to rule Tibet with a rod of iron. I am grateful that today we have not just the Minister with us but, in the Public Gallery, representatives from the Tibetan community in this country, including Migyer Dorjee, a representative of his Holiness—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Perhaps I might teach the hon. Gentleman something. He may not refer to anyone outside the Chamber, and that includes the Public Gallery.

Mr. Baker: I was unaware of that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall respect it.
Since 1959, thousands of innocent Tibetans have been killed, imprisoned and tortured for no other reason than that they are Tibetan. The Chinese flag was raised for the first time in Lhasa on 23 March 1959—almost 40 years ago to the day. Within three days of the uprising, 10,000 Tibetans had been killed. Treasures from Tibet, especially from the monasteries, were looted and removed to China—in the same way as the Nazi Government in Germany behaved towards countries that they had invaded. By 1961, the land under cultivation had increased by 22.5 per cent. as a consequence of Chinese involvement, but Tibet suffered famine of epidemic proportions because grain was shipped out of Tibet to China. Tibetans starved in their thousands: so bad was the situation that parents were forced to feed their dying children with their own blood in an effort to keep them alive.
If that were not bad enough, the situation worsened with the onset of the cultural revolution, which affected Tibet as well as China. I could list statistic after statistic from that period, but suffice it to say that, before the Chinese decided to interfere in Tibet, there were more than 6,000 monasteries whereas, by the end of the cultural revolution, only five years later, there were only 13—a catalogue of destruction unimaginable in this country. Hundreds of works of art were destroyed—it seemed that everything Tibetan was up for destruction. The Tibetans are a religious people, but their religious places were used for keeping pigs in a deliberate attempt to denigrate Tibet's religion—contrary to the theoretical meaning of the Chinese constitution. In 1968, movement beyond house and field was forbidden, and Chinese officials' permission was required to collect firewood. By 1973, in just 14 years, one seventh of the Tibetan population had been killed as a consequence of the Chinese invasion.
Over the past 40 years, a policy of what can be described only as apartheid has been operated in Tibet. Electricity has been provided for the capital, but only in the Chinese quarters. Free medical care has been supplied for settlers, but only barefoot doctors are available for

Tibetans. Food rations have been available for the whole population, but, when rationing is in place, the Chinese have received twice as much as Tibetans. All business has to be conducted in Chinese. Few Tibetans are in positions of power in Tibet, and those who are could be described as accomplices of the Chinese regime.
With my interest in the environment, I find the environmental damage that Tibet has suffered in the past 40 years horrifying. The Tibetans, as Buddhists, respect life in all its forms, but hitherto protected wildlife has been slaughtered to such an extent that formerly abundant species are now threatened with extinction. The snow leopard, the Himalayan monkey, wild yaks and gazelles are all on the brink of extinction as a consequence of Chinese involvement in Tibet. In addition, Tibet has been used as a convenient location for the dumping of nuclear waste. Deforestation continues apace, as the once prevalent Tibetan forests are cut down and the wood exported to China. That has not only destroyed the forests but has led to numerous environmental problems within Tibet. A once proud country has been raped and pillaged.
From 1977 to 1980, there was a slight improvement, and Hu Yaobang visited the country and admitted that mistakes had been made. However, it has all been downhill since then. In their own country, Tibetans continue to be second-class citizens, subject to arbitrary arrest and to torture with weapons such as electric batons. Ordinary Tibetans, whether or not they are monks or nuns, are subject to gross human rights abuses that no one in this world could possible defend. Such is the repression that it is now an offence to own or display a Tibetan flag. I have here a Tibetan flag and, by showing it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am committing a simple act which, if I were in Lhasa, would make me subject to arbitrary arrest, imprisonment and torture.
For monks and nuns to have pictures of the Dalai Lama in their monasteries is now an offence. The Dalai Lama is the religious leader of Tibet; how can the Chinese possible claim to respect human rights and religious freedom when they go to such lengths to prevent Tibetans from possessing even photographs? On numerous occasions since 1959, monks and nuns have been required to issue ritual denunciations of the Dalai Lama and to undertake all sorts of horrific acts to demonstrate those denunciations of their religious leader.
The Tibetans, who are a proud and brave people, continue their protests. The Chinese will never win the hearts and minds of Tibetans as long as they continue their current policies of repression. They cannot win in that way, so, instead, they are trying to win in a far more insidious way. China is operating a policy of mass migration of Han Chinese into Tibet, with the clear intention of making Tibetans a minority within their own country. That is nothing new for China: it did the same thing in places such as Mongolia.
By 1982, a third of Lhasa was occupied by Chinese. Today, Lhasa is a Chinese city. Much of the original city has been destroyed and replaced with grey, faceless 1950s buildings. The policy of deliberately making Tibetans a minority in their own country, treating them as second-class citizens and destroying their civilisation I can only describe—and it is not a word I use cavalierly—as genocide.
I turn briefly to the international perspective. I believe that Tibet is legally an independent country—that is not the position of the British Government, and the Minister


will elaborate on that point—and that China is an occupying power. I could cite at length the history of Tibet's independence and I have gathered information from previous centuries to back my case. I do not have time to set it out in full detail.
In 1876, the Chefoo convention gave the United Kingdom the right to establish a trade mission in Tibet. The United Kingdom had signed a similar convention in 1858 relating to China. Therefore, by reaching a separate agreement with Tibet, the United Kingdom recognised that that country was not part of China. In 1894, the then Foreign Secretary, the Marquis of Salisbury, said:
If the Chinese ever had any authority in Tibet, they certainly have none now.
At the very least, the British Government recognised Tibet's de facto independence from China.
In 1904, the United Kingdom and Tibet signed the Lhasa convention. China objected, but the United Kingdom replied:
Tibet is not one of the 18 provinces of the Chinese Empire.
Treaties have been signed by the United Kingdom and Tibet. China had no tax-raising powers in Tibet and had to pay taxes on its goods entering Tibet. How else do we define independence and sovereignty? Tibet conducted its own foreign policy. Those are the hallmarks of an independent country.
China invaded Tibet in 1905. However, after the Chinese emperor was deposed in 1910, the Dalai Lama declared all ties broken and the last Chinese troops left Tibet in 1913. Between 1913 and 1959, there is no question but that Tibet operated as an independent country, with its own currency and stamps. When China declared that Tibet was part of China, British authorities in this country issued a formal protest about that declaration.
Britain plays an important role in relation to Tibet. When the 1959 uprising occurred, Britain was the only independent witness to that event. We have enjoyed long relations with Tibet and, in this century and the last, Britain has been closer than any other country to Tibet. Therefore, we have an historical duty to represent the views of the Tibetan people.
There are further indications that Britain recognised Tibet's independence. In 1914, the British signed an agreement with Tibet—the Simla convention. The British said:
the Chinese Government will of course lose all the privileges and advantages which the tripartite convention"—
the alternative agreement—
secures to them, including recognition of Chinese suzerainty over Tibet; while the return of the Chinese Resident at Lhasa"—
the Amban —
will be postponed indefinitely and His Majesty's Government will render the Tibetans all possible assistance in resisting Chinese aggression.
In 1921, Curzon, the then Foreign Minister, told the Chinese:
We shall regard ourselves at liberty to deal with Tibet, if necessary, without again referring to China; to enter into closer relations with the Tibetans; to send an officer to Lhasa from time to time to consult the Tibetan Government … and to give Tibetans any reasonable assistance they might require in the development and protection of their country.

It is clear that the British, in the inter-war years, recognised Tibet as an independent country.
When Tibet asserted her neutrality in the second world war, the British Foreign Office said:
The Tibetans have every moral right to their independence for which they have fought successfully in the past, and we are committed to support them in maintaining it".
That is what the British Government said in 1942. They continued:
For over 30 years (Tibetans) have enjoyed de facto independence and do not wish to be subjugated".
I believe it is quite clear that Tibet is an independent country and that China is an occupying force. Because of our historical connections with Tibet, Britain can play an important role in clarifying that position and pushing for human rights improvements and the recognition of Tibet. The Government must take up that role.
Unfortunately, for reasons of realpolitik, Tibet has been abandoned by the west since 1959. Tibet is not geographically important. It has no natural resources that the British, American and other western Governments need. It does not have the strategic importance of Kuwait. China is powerful, and there are other interests to consider, such as Hong Kong and trade relations.
The Government will never condone the human rights abuses in China. I acknowledge that they regularly make protests about those to the Chinese. They have genuinely tried to engage the Chinese in constructive dialogue and persuade them to change direction. As I said in an oral question to the Minister on Tuesday, I do not criticise that process in any way, but, unfortunately, the Chinese regard it as weakness. They have signed plenty of bits of paper in the past year to say that they will improve their human rights, but human rights have got worse in Tibet and China in that time. There has been no end to the invasion of Tibet by migrating Han Chinese. There has been no meeting with the Dalai Lama. In short, there has been no progress.
I should like the Minister to answer four questions in his reply. First, will the Government recognise that Tibet was independent before 1959 and that China is therefore an occupying power? Will the Minister admit that Tibet is not part of China? That is an important question.
Secondly, will the Government support a motion at the meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights, due to take place on 22 March, condemning China, specifically mentioning Tibet, and pressing China to negotiate with the Dalai Lama?
Thirdly, will the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary meet the Dalai Lama when he visits the United Kingdom in May?
Finally, will the UK demand, with our European Union partners, the immediate release of the Panchen Lama, who has been imprisoned, without justification, in mainland China? Will the Government further demand that independent witnesses from the EU or the Government be sent to verify that the Panchen Lama is still alive and healthy?
Tibet is a wonderful country, which has been dealt a bad hand in the past 40 years. This country has an historical relationship with Tibet that gives us a moral duty to do what we can to help those people.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on raising this issue and the way in which he put his arguments. I thank him for bringing to the House his concerns and those of others.
The hon. Gentleman has expressed his understandable worries about the situation in Tibet. He knows that Tibet is, rightly, of concern to the wider public and Members of the House. As he said, the issue has been brought sharply into focus this week with the 40th anniversary of the exile from Tibet of the Dalai Lama. The hon. Gentleman's timing is extremely good.
The Government share the deep concerns expressed by many hon. Members and we are actively addressing them with the Chinese through our human rights dialogues and other contacts. Tibet features prominently in those discussions and in the points that we make about human rights. The hon. Gentleman said that, for reasons of realpolitik, western Governments have abandoned Tibet. That is not the case; we have not abandoned the people of Tibet, and we shall continue to express our concerns and raise many of the issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The hon. Gentleman asked me four questions, the first of which related to the status of Tibet. He knew the answer to the question even as he asked it, but it may be worth while putting on record again the position taken by successive UK Governments. They have regarded Tibet as autonomous, while recognising the special position of China there. That continues to be the policy of this Government. As the hon. Gentleman knows—he expressed his regrets on this point—Tibet has never been internationally recognised as independent. This Government and our predecessors have not recognised the Dalai Lama's government in exile. However, we believe strongly that the Tibetans should have a greater say in running their own affairs, and we have urged the Chinese authorities to respect the distinct cultural, religious and ethnic identities of the Tibetan people. The hon. Gentleman rightly made several powerful points about the way in which those distinct identities have been undermined in the past four decades.
We do not recognise the Dalai Lama as the head of the Tibetan Government-in-exile, but we do acknowledge him as a highly respected spiritual leader, the winner of the Nobel peace prize and an important and influential force. He has visited the United Kingdom several times, and we look forward to his visit in May when he will be met at an appropriate level by members of the Government.
The best way to achieve a lasting solution to the situation in Tibet is through dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, without any preconditions. We continue to urge China to enter into such a dialogue. The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited China in October last year, he raised the question of Tibet and our concerns about human rights and put forward the points that I have just made about the need for a dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Tibetans, involving the Dalai Lama.
We have also expressed many deep concerns to the Chinese about the situation in Tibet. The hon. Gentleman referred to some of them. They include the "re-education" of monks and nuns in Tibet, under which some, as he

said, are reported to be required to renounce their loyalty to the Dalai Lama. We have also expressed our concern about the reported restrictions on the display of the Dalai Lama's picture and the use of the Tibetan flag, which the hon. Gentleman also highlighted. We have raised all those issues in our dialogue with the Chinese.
China's recent atheist propaganda campaign has also given us cause for concern. We most certainly believe that the Chinese should see religion as fulfilling a basic human need and right. Religion should never be seen as a threat. Again, I give the hon. Gentleman a clear commitment that we shall continue to raise such matters.
We are also concerned about the future of the special ethnic, cultural and religious characteristics of Tibet in light of the conditions there. The hon. Gentleman mentioned reports of the migration of a significant number of Han Chinese to the Tibet Autonomous Region. Again, we wish the essential characteristics of Tibetan culture to be maintained, not subverted and undermined.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Panchen Lama. The detention in 1995 of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima raises particular concerns. The boy, who will be only 10 years old in April, was detained following his recognition in 1995 by the Dalai Lama as the Panchen Lama, the second highest religious figure in Tibet. The UK Government are not in a position to hold a view on the child's candidacy as the Panchen Lama—that is clearly a matter for the Tibetans alone to decide—but he is just a child, and we are concerned about his welfare. We have repeatedly asked the Chinese to be allowed to visit him to check on his well-being. Regrettably, this request has not been granted by China. We shall continue to raise his case and that of other Tibetans with the Chinese at each and every opportunity.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the positions adopted by this Government. It might be worth while to remind him, although I do not think that he has forgotten, of the special initiative that we took during our presidency of the EU. For the first time, a delegation of EU Troika ambassadors in Beijing made a week-long visit to Tibet in May last year to make an assessment of the situation there. We were pleased that that took place during the British presidency. The delegation was led by the British ambassador and was supported by a British Tibetan speaker, which was in itself an important innovation and precedent. As a result of that visit, the European Union as a whole agreed some common guidelines for addressing the issue of Tibet. It may be useful if I list them.
The first guideline was to urge China to respect human rights in Tibet. The second was to encourage China to begin talks with the Dalai Lama. The third was to target development assistance for ethnic Tibetans to help them to compete and survive in the economy. The fourth was to seek to preserve the Tibetan language and culture.
I hope that the hon. Member for Lewes will recognise that Europe and the United Kingdom are supporting the human rights dialogue with practical co-operation. While in Tibet, the EU Troika ambassadors visited Pa Nam, the site of a £5.1 million EU rural development project. That project will directly benefit indigenous Tibetan people by providing employment, training and access to land. Britain alone will contribute about 15 per cent. of the costs of that project. The Government are also providing development assistance to Tibet through the Save the Children projects in education and health, so we are


pleased that the Troika ambassadors' visit took place. It was a welcome visit, and it was a welcome initiative on our part.
The hon. Gentleman asked about our overall approach to the issue of human rights and the forthcoming meetings in Geneva. Perhaps I may take a few minutes to put those in context. Since the successful handover of sovereignty in Hong Kong in July 1997, the Government have succeeded in placing our relations with China on a new, more constructive basis. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to China last year strengthened that relationship. We shall continue to build on it and we look forward to welcoming President Jiang Zemin to the United Kingdom in the autumn.
As part of that relationship, we are addressing our human rights concerns in a variety of ways. We have raised them directly with the Chinese Government. The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister did so when they met Chinese leaders during their visits to China last year. I will do so when I visit China next month. We do so regularly with the Chinese ambassador in London. We shall continue to press the Chinese Government to live up to the standards of the international covenants that they have signed—a process that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The two processes—dialogue and the raising of specific cases—are often regarded as mutually exclusive. They are not. We have been able to express our concerns about individual cases—about what we would see as the violation of human rights—and to place those in the overall dialogue. We feel that that may well be the most constructive way to proceed. However, I emphasise that dialogue is not an end in itself. It must be a means to achieve an improvement in human rights in China—otherwise, the dialogue has no purpose. It is a vehicle for achieving change.
As a result of the dialogue, there have been some improvements in China, but there have been some very disappointing recent developments there about which we have expressed, and shall continue to express, our deep concerns.
Twelve positive steps have emerged from the dialogue, and it is worth remembering them and considering how much progress we could have made without the dialogue. In October 1997, China signed the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. In October 1998, China signed the international covenant on civil and political rights. In September 1998, there was the visit to China and to Tibet by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson. There was the visit to China and to Tibet by the UN working group on arbitrary detention. An invitation was extended to the UN special rapporteur on torture, who also visited China.
Chinese agreement was given to report separately on Hong Kong under the two international covenants. The EU Troika ambassadors visited Tibet. Discussions took place with the Chinese on issues of serious human rights concerns, including individual cases, the death penalty, conditions of detention and Tibet. There was collaboration on the EU-China human rights co-operation programme, which includes projects in the areas of civil and political rights as well as economic and social rights, and those activities have been funded by the European Commission. There have been two EU-China legal affairs seminars, and a seminar on the rights of women. The Chinese accepted participation in the dialogue of critical western non-governmental organisations, such as Amnesty International. Finally, Chinese prosecutors have shown suspects a card describing human and basic rights in court proceedings.
Those are signs of the progress that we have made. We must decide in Geneva—we want European Union member states to take the decision together—whether we can achieve more by other means. It is a tactical not a principled question. I think that the hon. Gentleman and I share very much the same agenda.

Mr. Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for approaching this productively. When China signed the international covenant on civil and political rights in October 1998, China Daily said:
It is not that China's stance or policies on the issue of human rights have changed … rather that the belated favourable turn in the international atmosphere has created an opportunity for China to elaborate its perspectives".
I am very concerned that China is signing bits of paper but changing nothing.

Mr. Fatchett: I understand that concern; we seek change. As I said, we are wedded not to the process but to the outcomes. That is why the question becomes tactical. China's signing into the international human rights regime is important in itself. It is a statement in itself, on which we must build. From the process to which I have referred, we never expected overnight, dramatic changes. The process is a long one, and we are committed to it.
I hope that I have been able to persuade the hon. Gentleman and those who have a real interest in the future of Tibet and its people that this Government share many of their concerns. We are active on those concerns, and will continue to raise them on behalf not just of individual Lobby groups or Members of Parliament but of the United Kingdom Government. That forms a central part of our dialogue on human rights and, because of it, to return to a phrase used by the hon. Gentleman, we will not forget Tibet. Tibet forms an essential and central part of what we are trying to do on human rights.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock